MASTER 
NEGA  TIVE 
NO.  91-80416 


MICROFILMED  1992 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


as  part  of  the 
"Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project" 


Funded  by  the 
VVMENT  FOR  THE 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 

The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  -  Title  17,  United 
States  Code  --  concerns  the  making  of  photocopies  or  other 
reproductions  of  copyrighted  material... 

Columbia  University  Library  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  to 
accept  a  copy  order  if,  in  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order 
would  mvolve  violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


AUTHOR: 


SCHROEDER, 

THEODORE  ALBERT 


TITLE: 


FREEDOM  OF  THE 
PRESS  AND.... 


PLACE: 


NEW  YORK  CITY 


DA  TE : 


1906 


Re 


FIl 
IM 

FII 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 

BIBLIOGRAPHIC  MICROFORM  TARHFT 


Master  Negative  # 


Original  Material  as  Filmed  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 


.  Acquici  tiori'S      NYCG-YQ 
o\    b   -    SAVL  rc'jord 


ST: 

:5        FRN: 

:             MG: 

EL- 

:                   AD: 12-06- 91 

CSC: 

:           MOD: 

:           CNR: 

A7C: 

UD: 12-06- 91 

GI'C: 

:           1.^  1 0 : 

:           }-■  1 C  :  0 

CON' 

RLP: 

:           CPl; 

:0      rsr.o 

ILC: 

:               MEI:1         11:0 

RR: 

COL: 

EML: 

:                GEN:         BSE: 

8KS/SAVE   Books        hUL/BIB    NYCG91-B100852 

flH    PN  SCHROEDLR,  THEODORl:  AND  IW  fRLEDOH    -    Cluctcr 

ID:HYCG91-B100852    RTYP:a 

CC:9il^   BLT:ani      DCF : 

CP:nyu     L:enq     INT: 

PC:r      PD:199l/1906 

MMD:      OR:     POL:     Dh 

040      NNCi:cNNC 

050  0    HV6727J-b.S3b 

100  10   Schroeder,  fheodore  Alber  t ,  }:dia64- 

245  10  Freedom  of  the  f>ress  and  "obscene" 

aysrcby  Theodore  Schroeder  ... 
260  0   New  York  City,rbTiie  Free  speech  leaqiie ,  J  ccl906  . 
300     71  p.tc23  cm. 

500     "These  essays  are  collected  and  f)ubHshed  by  tfie  Free  speech  league. " 


li  tcrature^hCmicr  ofor  m].  rb Tin  ce  e: 


BKS/SAVE   Books 
Cluster^  1  of  5  - 


FUL/BIB 
SAVE  record 


NYCG91-B100852 


Acquis! tions 


NYCG-VG 


SOS  0   More  liberty  of  press  essential  to  moral  fjroqress.  An  address 
for  tfie  National  purity  federation,  held  in  Chicago,  October  9- 
.--What  is  criminally  obscene?  A  scientific  study  of  the  absurd 
"tests"  of  obscenity.  This  essay  was  a  part  of  the  proceedings 
ngr^es  internatiofial  de  m_edicine,  section  XVI  m„edicine  i.egalc 
t  Lisbon,  Portugal,  April,  1906,  and  also  published  in  tfic  Alban 
urnal  of  July,  1906. --Liberty  of  discussion  defended  with  specia 
ation  to  sex-discussion.  An  essay  revised  and  republished  from  t 
al  review  for  August  and  September,  1906. 
0  Freedom  of  the  press. 
0  Literature,  Immoral. 
RLIN 


prepared 
12,  1906 
judicial 
of  XV  Co 
,  held  a 
y  law  jo 
1  ar.^plic 
he  Liber 


650 
650 
LOG 
QD 


12-06-91 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 


FILM     SIZE:     "^6^^ 


IMAGE  PLACEMENT:    lA  (^UAQ   IB    IIB 

DATE     FILMED: ilLlljJr^ INITIALS 

HLMEDBY:    RESEARCH  PUBLICATIONS.  INC  WOODBRIDGE,  cf 


REDUCTION     RATIO:     ^V  ^ 


c 


Association  for  information  and  Image  IManagement 

1100  Wayne  Avenue,  Suite  1100 
Silver  Spring,  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Centimeter 

1         2        3 

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiili 


I  I  T 


4 

liiiilii 


TTT 


5        6 

Jiiiiliiiilii 


7        8        9 

iliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiili 


10       11 

liiiiliiiili 


12 

1 


TTT 


mjmjmm^^ 


13       14       15   mm 

iiiliiiiliiiil 


Inches 


1 


1.0 

Ui  1  2.8 

2.5 
2.2 

2.0 
1.8 

1.6 

I.I 

£   US. 

feiUU 

1.4 

1.25 

MfiNUFfiCTURED  TO  flllM  STRNDflRDS 
BY  PPPLIED  IMAGE.    INC. 


7U  i 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  PRESS 


— AND — 


"OBSCENE"  LITERATURE. 


THREE  ESSAYS 


BY 


'0^    THEODORE    SCHROEDER,    ^ 


63  East  Fifty-ninth  Street,  New  York  City. 


OF  THE  NEW  YORK  BAR. 


<( 


There  is  tonic  in  the  things  that  men  do  not  7vish  to  hear.^'- 
Henry  Ward  Beecher. 


THESE  ESSAYS    ARK    COLLECTED   AND    PUBLISHED  BY 

THE  FREE  SPEECH  LEAGUE, 

120  Lexington  Avenue, 

New  York  City. 


Copyrighted  by  the  Author,  Nov.  igo6. 


READ  THIS  PAMPHLET, 


THAT  YOU  MAY  KNOW  WHAT 


Outrages  on  Liberty 


YOU    ARE    TOLERATING. 


THEN  READ 


"Practical  Suggestions" 


ON    THE    BACK    COVER, 


(. 


AND  DO  SOMETHING! 


FREEDOM  OF  TH  E  PRESS 


— AND — 


"OBSCENE"  LITERATURE 


THREE  ESSAYS 


BY 


THEODORE    SCHROEDER, 


63  East  Fifty-ninth  Street,  New  York  City. 

OF  THE  NEW  YORK  BAR. 


\ 


"  There  is  tonic  in   the  things  that  men  do  not  tvish  to  hear. 
Henry  Ward   Beecher. 


»» 


THESE  ESSAYS    ARK   COLLECTED   AND    PUBLISHED   BY 

THE  FREE  SPEECH  LEAGUE, 

120  Lexington  Avenue, 

New  York  City. 


Copyrighted  t>y  the  Author,  Nov.  1906. 


I' 


i 

I  • 


ANNOUNCEMENT. 


The  late  Dr.  Edward  Bliss  Foote  deposited,  with  his  last 
will  and  testament,  a  letter  vvnich  contained  the  following 
paragraph : 

"  To  my  sons,  or,  in  case  of  their  demise,  to  their  suc- 
cessors, I  would  say  that  my  wishes  would  be  that  they  give 
generously  from  the  proceeds  of  my  estate  to  all  good  move- 
ments for  the  maintenance  of  free  press,  free  speech  and  free 
mails,  the  cause  of  heredity  (i.  e.,  stirpiculture,  eugenics), 
liberalism,  etc.,  which  movements  have  as  yet  no  sufficient 
legal  organization  to  permit  them  to  receive  legacies.  All 
projects  that  have  for  their  object  the  improvement  of  the 
human  family  have  ever  enlisted  my  sympathies  and  my 
support,  and  my  successors  cannot  better  carry  out  my 
wishes  than  to  give  liberally  to  them." 

Because  of  that  request,  and  of  his  own  devotion  to  the 
cause  of  freedom  of  speech,  Dr.  E.  B.  Foote,  Jr.,  has  furnished 
the  money  to  print  this  pamphlet  and  gratuitously  to  circulate 
a  large  number  of  them  in  official  circles.  It  is  intended  also 
to  incorporate  the  Free  Speech  League,  so  that  hereafter 
bequests  may  be  made  to  further  the  ends  of  all  friends  of 
free  inquiry. 

Mr.  Schroeder  is  preparing  other  arguments  attacking  the 
validity  of  various  laws  which  now  abridge  the  freedom  of 
speech  and  press,  which  other  essays  we  also  desire  to  pub- 
lish, A  Free  Press  Anthology  is  also  in  preparation,  and 
should  be  given  a  wide  circulation. 

To  that  end,  as  well  as  the  wider  dissemination  of  these 
essays  we  invite  contributions  from  all  lovers  of  intellectual 
hospitality.  Remittances  should  be  sent  to  Dr.  E.  B.  Foote, 
Jr.,  Treasurer,  120  Lexington  Avenue,  New  York  City, 

Ever  for  Truth,  Justice  and  Liberty, 

THE    FREE    SPEECH    LEAGUE, 

E.  W.  Chamberlain,  Pres. 

10  W.  6 1  St  Street,  N.  Y.  City. 


THE     FOLLOWING    REPORT    OF 

COMMITTEE  ON   LAWS  OF  OBSCENITY, 

WAS    UNANIMOUSLY    ADOPTED    BY    THE 

NATIONAL     PURITY     FEDERATION, 

October  ii,  1906. 

Your  committee  appointed  to  secure  for  Purity  workers  ftjat  liberty 
of  pr^sand^  speech  essential  to  the  Purity  Propaganda  would  report  as 

'°  We^d^^ire  to  express  our  hearty  and  unqualified  endorsement  of  the 
purpose  for  which  the  laws  for  the  suppression  "f  ^"^f.  f  f , '^^PS^ltes 
merit  of  those  who  send  obscene  literature  through  the  "^"'tea  ^tat^ 
maUs  were  originally  framed ;  we  wish  also  to  express  our  earnest 
de^  r4  Tor  evenl"arger  exercise  of  these  laws  in  the  accompl.shme.U  of 
?he  orig?naTpurpose,  which  must  have  been  m  the  mmds  of  those  who 

^'^Tnn?etr^efer!'rf%hTV  'Hat  Puji'V  workers  are  -sUntJy 
fctiiy"  inXelLSr  latstavri^^^^^^^^^ 

S?r^rolXlr:faers"1I^P^^^^^^ 

^  ^h-  ^^v^^^'^^:^^^^j^^ 

workers  whose  efficient  help  is  most  seriously  needed  your  Committee 

""-F^iref  Th^ttVpSrt  bl  rpowTredtTppojnt  a  permanent 
comm Utee  of  Jeven  of  whom  he  shall  be  one  who  shall^^eek  to  secure 
mirh  changes  in  the  iudicia    tests  of  obscenity  as  will  make  the  law  so 
ce^ain'Thirby  rLd^       it  anyone  may  know  what  con^f|  "^^^^^^^^^^ 
tion  and  to  secure  such  an  interpretation  of  the  law  as  >?,'"  "^^^.f  *^^^^ 

S^i^S^eirtoVe^rSferSl^^ 

s[tsr;'t^°tThrdur^^^^^^^^^^ 

deflnse'and  pr^ecdon  L  -uch  needed  by  earnest  and  s.nce^^Pumy 
workers  who  are  now  constantly  exposed  to  the  <|f"fe;*  "^  PJ°^^""n3 
by  the  uncertainty  of  the  very  laws  which  they  desire  to  cherisn  ana 

We  would  therefore  recommend  that  this  Committee  be  authorizwi 
to  afford  to  anv  real  Purity  worker  who  is  unjustly  arrested  such  sympa- 
thy and  assLtLce.  legal'financial  and  moral,  as  may  be  within  their 

''°  We  would  also  recommend  that  this  Committee  should  seek  to  enlist 
the  co-^oeration  of  Ither  organizations  in  furthering  these  same  ends^ 

Thi^CommUtee  shall  alio  be  empowered  to  make  any  propaganda 
necls^rv  through  the  public  press  or  otherwise  in  securing.such  puij^h- 
S  of  the  gu"fty  and  such  protection  for  the  innocent  as  m  their  judg- 
ment may  be  most  wise  and  discreet.  p.,„„_,, 

MrSA^RAHRBOND^     •  Dr    HA„,«A.SC„WE.0ENBR. 

Dr.  Delos  F.  Vvilcox. 
Republished  from  THE  LIGHT. 


CONTENTS. 

I.— MORE  LIBERTY  OF  PRESS  ESSENTIAL  TO 
MORAL  PROGRESS.  An  address  prepared  for 
the  National  Purity  Federation,  held  in  Chicago, 
October  9-12,  1906.  Herein  are  pointed  out  some 
of  numerous  wrongs  that  are  perpetrated  by  our 
present  abridgment  of  the  freedom  of  the  press. 

II.— WHAT  IS  CRIMINALLY  OBSCENE?  A  scien- 
tific study  of  the  absurd  judicial  "  tests"  of  obscen- 
ity. This  essay  was  a  part  of  the  proceedings  of 
the  XV  Con  J  res  fnternational  de  Medicine^  section 
XVI  Medicine  Legale,  held  at  Lisbon,  Portugal, 
April,  1906,  and  also  published  in  the  Albany  Law 
Journal  of  July,  1906.         .... 

III.— LIBERTY  OF  DISCUSSION  DEFENDED 
WITH  SPECIAL  APPLICATION  TO  SEX- 
DISCUSSION.  An  essay  revised  and  republished 
from  The  Liberal  Review  for  August  and  Septem- 
ber, 1906.       .  . 


PAGE 


If 


33 


49 


il> 


i 


'I 


(|  MORE  LIBERTY  OF   PRESS  ESSENTIAL 
((■TO    MORAL    PROGRESS.)/ 
By  Theodore  Schroeder, 

(This  Addre**  was  prepared  for  a  conference  of  the  National  Purity  Pederatioa 
held  in  Chicago  October  9-13,  1908,  now  somewhat  enlarged  and  revised.) 

Only  a  few  decades  ago,  the  mighty  governed  the  many, 
through  cunning,  strategy,  and  compulsory  ignorance.  A  lay 
citizen  was  punished  by  law,  if  he  presumed  critically  to  dis- 
cuss politics,  officials,  slave  emancipation,  astronomy,  geology, 
or  religion.  To  teach  our  African  slaves  to  read,  or  to  circu- 
late abolitionist  literature,  was  in  some  States  a  crime,  because 
such  intelligence  conduced  to  an  ''immoral  tendency'*  toward 
insurrection.  To  have  the  Bible  in  one's  possession  has  also 
been  prohibited  by  law,  because  of  the  "immoral  tendency" 
toward  private  judgments,  which  general  reading  of  it  might 
induce. 

One  by  one   the  advocates  of  mystery  and  blind  force  have 
surrendered  to  the  angels  of  enlightenment,  and  every  enlarge- 
ment of  opportunity  for  knowledge  has  been  followed  by  the 
moral  elevation  of  humanity.     Only  in  one  field  of  thought 
do  we  still  habitually  assume  that  ignorance  is  a  virtue,  and 
enlightenment  a  crime.    Only  upon  the  subject  of  sex  do  wc 
by  statute  declare  that  artificial  fear  is  a  safer  guide  than  in- 
telligent  self-reliance,  that  purity  can  thrive  only  in  conceal- 
ment  and   ignorance,  and   that   to   know   all   of  oneself   is 
dangerous  and  immoral.     Here  only  are  we  afraid  to  allow 
truth  to  be  contrasted  with  error.    The  issue  is,  shall  we  con- 
tinue thus  to  fear  full  and  free  discussion  of  sex  facts  and  sex 
problems? 


i 
I 

f 


WHY  NOT  IGNORE  SEX? 

The  first  question  to  be  answered  is,  why  discuss  the  sub- 
ject of  sex  at  all?  There  are  those  who  advise  us  to  ignore  it 
entirely,  upon  the  theory  that  the  natural  impulse  is  a  suffi- 
cient guide.  To  this  it  may  be  answered  that  all  our  sex 
activities  cannot  be  subjected  to  the  constant  and  immediate 
control  of  the  will.  We  cannot  ignore  sex  by  merely  willing 
to  do  so.  Our  attention  is  unavoidably  forced  upon  the  sub- 
ject, both  by  conditions  within  and  without  ourselves.  That 
we  may  deceive  ourselves  in  this  particular  is  possible ;  that  we 
all  can  and  many  do  lie  about  it  is  certain. 

Without  sexual  education,  we  cannot  know  whether  we 
are  acting  under  a  healthy  or  a  diseased  impulse.  It  is  known 
to  the  psychologist  that  many  are  guilty  of  vicious  and  in- 
jurious sexual  practices,  without  being  in  the  least  conscious 
of  the  significance  of  what  they  are  doing.  Everywhere  we 
see  human  wrecks  because  of  a  failure  to  understand  their 
impulses,  or  to  impose  intelligent  restraints  upon  them.  Many 
become  sexually  impotent,  hyperaesthetic,  or  perverted  by 
gradual  processes  the  meaning  of  which  they  do  not  under- 
stand, and  whose  baneful  consequences  intelligence  would 
enable  them  to  foresee,  and  easily  avoid.  Since  individuals 
will  not  go  to  a  physician  until  the  injury  is  accomplished  and 
apparent,  it  follows  that  there  is  no  possible  preventive  except 
general  intelligence  upon  the  subject.  At  present  the  spread 
of  that  knowledge  is  impeded  by  laws  and  by  a  prurient 
prudery,  which  together  are  responsible  for  the  sentimental 
taboo  which  attaches  to  the  whole  subject.  The  educated  man 
of  to-day  measures  our  different  degrees  of  human  progress 
by  the  quantity  of  intelligence  which  is  used  in  regulating  our 
bodily  functioning.  No  reason  exists  for  making  sex  an  ex- 
ception. 

THE  PHYSICAL  FOUNDATION   FOR   MORAL  HEALTH. 

To  those  who  accept  a  scientific  ethics,  moral  health  is 
measured  by  the  relative  degree  to  which  tlieir  conduct 
achieves  physical  and  mental  health  for  the  race.  To  the  rc- 
Kgious  moralist,  who  has  other  ends  in  view,  pathologic  sex- 
uality is  probably  the  greatest  imnediment  to  the  practical 
realization  of  his  ideal  of  sexual  morality.  Evervwhere  we 
see  that  disease  is  the  greatest  obstacle  to  moral  health.  From 
either  point  of  view,  it  follows  that  one  of  the  most  important 
considerations  in  all  purity  propaganda  must  be  the  diffusion 


8 


of  such  knowledge  as  will  best  conduce  to  the  highest  physical 
and  mental  perfection. 

I  will  ask  your  indulgence  for  a  few  general  observations, 
after  which  1  will  proceed  to  a  more  detailed  discussion  of 
our  legislative  preventives  to  sexual  intelligence  and  moral 
health. 


ON  THE  RIGHT  TO  KNOW. 

All  life  is  an  adjustment  of  constitution  to  environment 
The  seed  dies,  or  has  a  stunted  or  thrifty  growth,  according 
to  the  degree  of  harmonious  relationship  it  effects  with  soil, 
moisture  and  sunlight.  So  it  is  with  man:  He  lives  a  long, 
happy  and  useful  life,  just  to  the  degree  that  his  own  organism 
functions  in  accord  with  natural  law  operating  under  the  best 
conditions.  It  follows  that  a  growing  perfection  in  the  knowl- 
edge of  those  laws  is  essential  to  a  progressive  harmony  in  the 
individual's  conscious  adjustment  to  his  physical  and  social 
environment,  and  every  one  of  us  has  the  same  right  as  every 
other  to  know  all  that  is  to  be  known  upon  the  subject  of  sex, 
even  though  that  other  is  a  physician. 

Since  a  comparative  fullness  of  life  depends  upon  the  rela- 
tive perfection  of  the  individual's  adjustment  to  the  natural 
order,  and  since  the  greatest  knowledge  of  nature's  rule  of  life 
is  essential  to  the  most  perfect  conscious  adjustment  (which 
is  the  most  perfect  life),  it  follows  that  our  equality  of  right 
to  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness  entitles  every  sane 
adult  person  to  know  for  himself,  to  the  limit  of  his  desire 
and  understanding,  all  that  can  be  known  of  nature's  pro- 
cesses, not  excluding  sex. 

Every  sane  adult  person,  if  he  or  she  desires  it,  is  equally 
entitled  to  a  judgment  of  his  or  her  own  as  to  what  is  the 
natural  law  of  sex  as  applied  to  self,  and  to  that  end  is  person- 
ally entitled  to  all  the  evidence  that  any  might  be  willing  to 
submit  if  permitted.  It  is  only  when  all  shall  have  access  to  all 
the  evidence  and  each  shall  have  thus  acquired  intelligent 
reasoned  opinions  about  the  physiology,  psychology,  hygiene, 
and  ethics  of  sex,  that  we  can  hope  for  a  wise  social  judgment 
upon  the  problems  which  these  present.  The  greatest  freedom 
of  discussion  is  therefore  essential  as  a  condition  for  the  im- 
provement of  our  knowledge  of  what  is  nature's  moral  law 
of  sex,  and  is  indispensable  to  the  preservation  of  our  right  to 
know. 


J5 


I 


LEGAL   ABRIDGEMENT   OF   THE  RIGHT   TO   KNOW. 

•  This  brings  us  to  inquire  what  are  the  legal  abridgements 
of  our  right  to  know?  Both  our  Federal  and  State  laws  es- 
tablish a  so-called  "moral"^  censorship  of  literature.  All  the 
statutes  in  question  describe  what  is  prohibited  only  by  such 
epithets  as,  lewd,  indecent,  obscene,  lascivious,  disgusting,  or 
shocking.  At  the  time  of  the  enactment  of  these  laws,  the  scien- 
tific study  of  psychology  had  hardly  been  commenced,  and  the 
existence  of  a  sexual  psychology  was  not  yet  suspected.  Conse- 
quently it  was  ignorantly  and  erroneously  assumed  that  the 
prohibited  qualities  were  those  of  the  book  or  picture,  and  there- 
fore of  definitely  describable  characteristics.  One  needs  only 
to  analyze  the  judicial  tests  of  obscenity  to  discover  how  impos- 
sible and  absurd  it  is  to  attempt  to  define  the  prohibited  qual- 
ities in  terms  of  a  book  or  picture.  Modern  sexual  psychology 
now  seems  to  prove  that  the  words  in  question  only  symbolize 
an  emotional  association  in  the  viewing  mind,  and  not  at  all  a 
quality  inherent  in  the  printed  page.  Thus  science  and  the 
Bible  are  in  harmony  in  declaring  that  "Unto  the  pure  all 
things  are  pure,'*  notwithstanding  the  judicial  slurs  which 
judges,  ignorant  of  psychology,  have  cast  upon  that  text.  ( See 
Albany  Law  Journal,  July,  1906,  for  fuller  discussion.) 

This  judicial  error  brought  strange  consequences.  The 
courts  were  unable  to  frame  a  definition  of  the  obscene  in 
terms  of  a  book,  and  so  were  compelled  to  indulge  in  specu- 
lative vagaries.  Judges  now  practically  authorize  juries  to 
declare  anything  indecent  and  obscene,  or  not,  as  whim, 
caprice,  prejudice,  or  personal  malice  might  persuade  them 
that  the  book  or  picture  tended  to  induce  immoral  or  libidi- 
nous thoughts  in  the  minds  of  any  sexually  hyperaesthetic 
person  open  to  such  immoral  influences  and  into  whose  hands 
it  might  come.  No  standard  for  measuring  psychologic  ten- 
dencies, nor  mode  of  reconciling  conflicting  codes  of  ethics, 
was  attempted,  nor  could  be  furnished.  It  was  stupidly  as- 
sumed, in  contradiction  to  the  fact,  that  everybody  was  in 
agreement  as  to  what  is  the  higher  morality. 


THE  CASE  OF  HICKLIN. 

The  first  reported  English  decision  (Reg.  vs.  Hicklin,  L.  R. 
3  Q.  B.  360) ,  which  attempted  to  state  a  test  of  obscenity,  was 
decided  in  1868,  and  furnished  the  precedent  for  practically  all 
American  decisions.  The  facts  were  as  follows:  Hicklin,  the 
accused,  had  sold  a  pamphlet  entitled  "The  Confessional  Un- 

10 


masked:  Showing  the  Depravity  of  the  Romish  Priesthood, 
the  Iniquity  of  the  Confessional,  and  the  Questions  put  to 
Females  in  Confession.'*  The  pamphlet  consisted  of  extracts 
from  Catholic  theologians,  one  page  giving  the  exact  original 
Latin  quotations  and  the  adjoining  page  furnishing  a  correct 
translation  thereof.  Much  of  the  pamphlet  admittedly  was 
not  at  all  obscene.  It  was  not  sold  for  gain,  nor  with  any  in- 
tention to  deprave  morality,  but,  as  the  defendant  believed,  to 
improve  morality.  It  was  sold  by  him  as  a  member  of  the 
"Protestant  Electoral  Union,''  formed  "to  protest  against 
those  teachings  and  practices  which  are  un-English,  immoral, 
and  blasphemous,  to  maintain  the  Protestantism  of  the  Bible 
and  the  liberty  of  England.  *  *  *  To  promote  the  return  to 
Parliament  of  men  who  will  assist  them  in  these  objects  and 
particularly  will  expose  and  defeat  the  deep-laid  machinations 
of  the  Jesuits,  and  resist  grants  of  money  for  Romish  pur- 
poses." 

Notwithstanding  all  these  admitted  facts  the  court  held  the 
pamphlet  to  be  obscene  and  laid  down  this  test :  "Whether  the 
tendency  of  the  matter  charged  as  obscenity  is  to  deprave  and 
corrupt  those  whose  minds  are  open  to  such  immoral  influ- 
ences, and  into  whose  hands  a  publication  of  this  sort  may 
fall."  It  will  be  observed  that  it  was  criminal,  if  in  the  hands 
of  any  one  imaginary  person  it  might  be  speculatively  be- 
lieved to  be  injurious,  no  matter  how  much  it  tended  to 
improve  the  morals  of  all  the  rest  of  mankind,  nor  how  lofty 
were  the  motives  of  those  accused,  nor  how  true  was  that 
which  they  wrote.  This  is  still  the  test  of  obscenity  under  our 
laws,  and  it  has  worked  some  results  which  could  hardly  have 
been  in  contemplation  by  our  legislators  in  passing  our  laws 
against  indecent  literature. 

THE  BIBLE  JUDICIALLY  DECLARED  OBSCENE. 

K,  One  of  the  early  American  prosecutions  of  note  was  that 


of 


the  distinguished  eccentric,  George  Francis  Train,  in  1872. 
He  was  arrested  for  circulating  obscenity,  which  it  turned  out 
consisted  of  quotations  from  the  Bible.  Train  and  his  at- 
torneys sought  to  have  him  released  upon  the  ground  that  the 
matter  was  not  obscene,  and  demanded  a  decision  on  that  issue. 
The  prosecutor,  in  his  perplexity,  and  in  spite  of  the  protest  of 
the  defendant,  insisted  that  Train  was  insane.  If  the  matter 
was  not  obscene,  his  mental  condition  was  immaterial,  because 
there  was  no  crime.    The  court  refused  to  discharge  the  pris- 

II 


'I 


i 


<il 


«< 

if 


oner  as  one  not  having  circulated  obscenity,  but  directed  the 
jury,  against  their  own  judgment,  to  find  him  not  guilty  on  the 
ground  of  insanity,  thus,  by  necessary  implication,  deciding  the 
Bible  to  be  criminally  obscene. 

Upon  a  hearing  on  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus.  Train  was  ad- 
judged sane,  and  discharged.  Thus  an  vxpressed  decision  on  the 
obcenity  of  the  Bible  was  evaded,  thougl  the  unavoidable  in- 
ference was  for  its  criminality.^'^ 

In  his  autobiography.  Train  informs  us  that  a  Cleveland 
paper  was  seized  and  destroyed  for  republishing  the  same 
Bible  quotations  which  had  caused  his  arrest  in  New  York. 
Here  then  was  a  direct  adjudication  that  parts  of  the  Bible 
are  indecent,  and  therefore  unmailable.  (Here  I  think  Train 
must  be  referring  to  the  conviction  of  John  A.  Lant,  publisher 
of  the  Toledo  Sun.) 

In  1895  John  B.  Wise  of  Clay  Centre,  Kansas,  was  arrested 
for  sending  obscene  matter  through  the  mails  which  again 
consisted  wholly  of  a  quotation  from  the  Bible.  In  the  Uni- 
ted States  Court,  after  a  contest,  he  was  found  guilty  and  fined. 
Just  keep  in  mind  a  moment  these  court  precedents  where 
portions  of  the  Bible  have  been  judicially  condemned  as  crim- 
inally obscene,  while  I  connect  it  with  another  rule  of  law. 
The  courts  have  often  decided,  that  a  book  to  be  obscene  need 
not  be  obscene  throughout,  the  whole  of  it,  but  if  the  book  is 
osbcene  in  any  part  it  is  an  obscene  book,  within  the  meaning 
of  the  statutes.     (16  Blatchford  368.) 

You  will  see  at  once  that  under  the  present  laws  and  rely- 
ing wholly  on  precedents  already  established,  juries  of  irre- 
ligious men  could  wholly  suppress  the  circulation  of  the  Bible, 
and  in  some  states  the  laws  would  authorize  its  seizure  and 
destruction  and  all  this  because  the  words  "Indecent  and  ob- 
scene" are  not  definable  in  qualities  of  a  book  or  picture.  In 
•  other  words,  all  this  iniquity  is  possible  under  present  laws 
because  courts  did  not  heed  the  maxim,  now  scientifically  de- 
monstrable, viz.  "Unto  the  pure  all  things  are  pure." 

Of  course,  the  Old  Testament  in  common  with  all  books  that 
are  valuable  for  moral  instruction,  contains  many  unpleasant 
recitals,  but  that  is  no  reason  for  suppressing  any  of  them. 
I  prefer  to  put  myself  on  the  side  of  that  English  judge  who 
said :  "To  sav  m  i^eneral  that  the  conduct  of  a  dead  person  can 
at  no  time  be  canvassed:  to  hold  that  even  after  asfes  are 
passed  the  conduct  of  bad  men  cannot  be  contrasted  with  the 

12 


good,  would  be  to  exclude  the  most  usetul  part  of  history." 
(Rex  vs.  Topham,  4  T.  R.  129.) 

I  therefore  denounce  this  law  because  under  it  may  be 
destroyed  books  containing  records  of  human  folly  and  error 
from  which  we  may  learn  valuable  lessons,  for  avoiding  the 
blight  from  violating  nature's  moral  laws.  Under  our  present 
statutes  some  of  the  writings  of  the  greatest  historians  and 
literary  masterpieces  have  been  suppressed  and  practicaly  all 
would  be  suppressed  if  the  courts  should  apply  to  them  im- 
partially the  present  judicial  test  of  obscenity. 


"almost  fxdurteen." 


In  1892  Dodd,  Mead  &  Co.  published  a  little  book  entitled 
"Almost  Fourteen,"  written  by  Mortimer  A.  Warren,  a  public 
school  teacher.  Before  publishing  it  Mr.  Mead  submitted  the 
manuscript  to  his  wife  and  to  the  pastors  of  the  Broadway 
Tabernacle,  and  of  the  Church  of  the  Heavenly  Rest,  and  to 
Dr.  Lyman  Abbott.     All  these  endorsed  its  aim  and  tone. 

After  publication,  there  were  of  course  prudes  who  criti- 
cised, but  such  papers  as  the  Christian  Union  gave  it  a  favor- 
able review.  The  Rev.  L.  A.  Pope,  then  pastor  of  the  Bap- 
tist church  of  Newburyport,  Mass.,  placed  the  book  in  the 
Sunday  School  library  of  his  church,  and  purchased  a  large 
number  at  a  reduced  price,  selling  them  at  cost,  simply  that 
the  young  might  read  and  learn,  so  well  did  he  think  of  the 
book.  In  my  own  view  it  would  be  impossible  to  deal  prop- 
erly with  the  subject  of  sex  and  do  it  in  a  more  delicate,  inof- 
fensive manner. 

No  question  was  raised  about  the  book  until  1897,  when 
Albert  F.  Hunt,  of  Newburyport,  Mass.,  was  arrested  for 
selling  obscene  literature.  Mr.  Hunt  had  made  himself  very 
unpopular  as  an  aj^gressive  reformer.  He  had  attacked  the 
police  force,  exhibited  the  iniquity  of  the  city  administration, 
exposed  the  sins  of  the  city,  such  as  the  practice  of  taking 
nude  photographs,  the  aggressions  of  the  saloonkeepers,  and 
exposed  the  owners  of  buildings  leased  for  prostitution.  He 
had  many  influential  enemies.  In  this  condition  he  secured 
permission  to  republish  "Almost  Fourteen"  in  his  paper,  was 
arrested,  convicted,  and  fined. 

I  have  no  doubt  in  my  mind  that,  judged  by  the  scien- 
tifically absurd  tests  of  obscenity  as  applied  bv  the  courts,  this 
innocent  book  was   criminal   under  the  law   against   obscene 

13 


literature,  because  no  doubt  somewhere  there  existed  some 
sexually  hyperaesthetic  person  into  whose  hands  it  might 
come,  and  in  whose  mind  it  might  induce  lewd  thoughts.  The 
legislative  "obscenity"  takes  no  account  of  the  thousands  who 
might  be  benefited  by  such  a  book ;  it  only  asks  if  there  may 
be  one  so  weak  that  it  might  injure  him. 

After  this  conviction  for  circulating  humanitarian  litera- 
ture of  a  most  useful  kind,  the  author  of  this  good  book  was 
driven  from  his  place  as  principal  of  the  public  schools,  by  the 
prudish  bigotry  of  his  fellow  townsmen  and  employers.  The 
book  can  now  be  had  only  with  much  of  its  most  useful  matter 
eliminated.  We  need  liberty  of  the  press  for  persons  like 
Warren,  Hunt,  and  Etedd.  Mead  &  Co. 

DR.  KIME  AND  THE  IOWA  MEDICAL  JOURhTAL. 

A  very  few  years  ago,  Dr.  Kime,  the  editor  of  the  Iowa 
Medical  Journal,  was  convicted  of  obscenity.  He  was  a  phy- 
sician of  high  standing  and  a  trustee  of  a  medical  college,  in 
which  a  few  young  rowdy  students  were  apparently  endeavor- 
ing to  drive  out  the  women  students.  A  protest  to  the  college 
authorities  resulted  only  in  a  two  weeks'  suspension.  On 
f urthe^  complaint,  instead  of  protecting  the  women  in  their 
equal  right  to  study  medicine  under  decent  conditions,  the 
authorities  excluded  women  altogether  from  the  medical 
school.  Filled  with  indignation.  Dr.  Kime  reiterated  his  pro- 
test, and  gave  publicity  to  some  of  the  methods  of  persecution, 
including  an  insulting  prescription  which  appeared  on  the  black- 
board where  all  the  class  could  see  it.  In  his  Medical  Jour- 
nal he  wrote :  "We  had  thought  to  withhold  this  prescription, 
owing  to  its  extreme  vulgarity,  but  we  believe  it  our  duty  to 
show  the  condition  exactly  as  it  exists,  and  let  each  physician 
judge  for  himself  as  to  the  justness  of  the  protest  filed.''  Then 
followed  the  "obscene"  prescription,  the  obscenity  of  which 
consisted  wholly  in  the  use  of  one  word  of  double  meaning. 

For  this  he  was  arrested,  and  although  supported  by  all 
four  daily  papers  of  his  home  city,  by  the  clergy  of  all  denom- 
inations, the  presidents  of  the  Y.  M.  C.  A.,  the  W.  C.  T.  U., 
and  the  Western  Society  for  the  Suppression  of  Vice,  and  the 
Society  for  the  Promotion  of  Social  Purity,  he  was  convicted, 
branded  as  a  criminal,  and  fined.  Judged  by  the  absurd  judi- 
cial tests  of  obscenity  which  are  always  applied,  the  conviction 
was  unquestionably  correct. 

14 


III 


DR.    MALCHOW  AND  "THE  SEXUAL  LIFE.'' 

Connected  with  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  schools  is 
Hamline  University  College  of  Physicians  and  Surgeons.  C. 
W.  Malchow  was  there  the  Professor  of  Proctology  and  As- 
sociate in  Clinical  Medicine.  He  was  also  the  President  of 
the  Physicians  and  Surgeons'  Club  of  MinneapoUs,  and  a 
member  of  the  Henepin  County  Medical  Society,  the  Minne- 
sota State  Medical  Society,  and  the  American  Medical  Asso- 
ciation. 

He  wrote  a  book  on  ''The  Sexual  Life"  which  received 
strong  praise  from  educational  and  medical  journals  and  from 
professional  persons.  I  have  seen  commendatory  reviews 
from  ten  professional  magazines.  While  in  press,  he  read  a 
most  perplexing  chapter  from  the  book  to  a  meeting  of  Metho- 
dist Ministers  and  its  delicate  treatment  of  a  difficult  subject 
was  strongly  commended. 

Yet  under  the  absurd  tests  prescribed  by  the  courts  and  in 
spite  of  the  protests  of  the  Minneapolis  Times  and  Tribune 
Dr.  Malchow  and  his  publisher  are  now  both  serving  a  jail 
sentence,  for  selling  through  the  mail,  a  high  class  scientific 
discussion  of  sex  to  the  laity. 

During  the  trial  the  court  refused  the  defendants  the  right 
to  prove  that  all  in  the  book  was  true,  holding,  with  all  the 
judicial  decisions,  that  their  being  true  was  immaterial  in  fixing 
guilt.  An  unsuccessful  effort  was  made  to  prove  the  need  for 
such  a  book  because  of  the  great  ignorance  of  the  public  upon 
sex  matters,  and  the  "learned"  judge  remarked  that  he  hoped 
it  was  true  that  the  public  was  ignorant  of  such  matters,  and 
excluded  the  evidence.  President  Roosevelt  being  asked  by 
members  of  Congress  to  pardon  the  convict  because  of  the 
propriety  of  his  book,  is  reported  to  have  expressed  an  amaz- 
ing regret  that  he  could  not  prolong  the  sentence. 

CLARK's  MARRIAGE  GUIDE. 

In  Massachusetts  one  Jones  was  arrested  for  sending 
through  the  mails  "Gark's  Marriage  Guide."  It  must  already 
be  apparent  that  under  the  laws  in  question  no  one  can  tell 
in  advance  what  is  or  is  not  criminal,  because  no  one  can  pre- 
determine what  will  be  the  opinion  of  a  judge  or  jury  upon 
the  speculative  problem  of  the  book's  psychological  tendency 
upon  some  hypothetical  reader  suffering  from  sexual  hyper- 
aestheticism.  Unfortunately,  Mr.  Jones  went  for  advice  to  a 
lawyer  who  must  have  been  a  good  deal  of  a  prude,  and  who 


15 


therefore  advised  his  cHent  to  plead  guilty,  which  he  did. 
Later  when  Judge  Lowell  was  called  upon  to  impose  the  sen- 
tence, he  is  reported  as  having  said  that  the  book  **is  not  im- 
moral or  indecent  at  all,"  and  imposed  only  a  very  light  fine.  In 
Chicago  the  same  book  was  suppressed  by  heavy  fines ;  aggre- 
gating over  $5ocx).oo. 

"from  the  ball-room  to  hell." 

This  book  has  the  endorsement  of  practically  all  opponents 
of  dancing.  It  furnished  the  suggestions  for  thousands  of 
sermons ;  it  had  the  commendation  of  innumerable  clergymen, 
including  several  bishops;  it  went  through  the  mails  unchal- 
lenged for  12  years.  A  Chicago  postal  official  now  declares  it 
criminally  "obscene"  and  the  book  is  suppressed.  Again  it  is 
not  a  rule  of  general  law  which  makes  this  book  criminal,  but 
the  whim  or  caprice  of  a  postal  subordinate. 

MRS.   CARRIE   NATION    ARRESTED. 

Most  of  the  literature  mtended  to  promote  personal  purity 
is  so  veiled  in  a  fog  of  verbiage  as  to  be  utterly  meaningless 
to  the  young,  because  they  lack  the  intelligence  which  alone 
could  make  it  possible  to  translate  the  innuendoes  into  the 
mental  pictures  which  the  words  are  supposed  to  symbolize. 
Recently  Mrs.  Carrie  Nation  in  her  paper  published  some 
wholesome  advice  to  small  boys.  She  used  scientifically  chaste 
English  and  took  the  trouble  to  define  the  meaning  of  her 
words.  She  wrote  so  plainly  that  there  was  actually  a  possi- 
bility that  boys  might  understand  what  she  was  trying  to 
teach  them.  She  wrote  with  greater  plainness  than  some  of 
those  books  which  have  been  adjudged  criminally  obscene. 

A  warrant  was  issued  for  her  in  Oklahoma,  for  sending 
obscene  matter  through  the  mails.  She  being  then  in  Texas 
on  a  lecture  tour,  was  there  arrested  and  taken  to  Dallas  be- 
fore a  U.  S.  Commissioner.  Fortunately  she  found  there  a 
U.  S.  Attorney  with  some  sense,  who,  though  he  did  not  ap- 
prove of  her  taste,  consented  to  the  discharge  of  the  prisoner. 
Mrs.  Nation  is  to  be  congratulated  upon  having  discovered 
one  spot  in  this  country  not  dominated  by  the  prurient  prudery 
of  New  England  and  New  York.  L^n fortunately  none  can 
know  when  and  where  another  healthy-minded  prosecutor 
will  be  found. 

CRIMES  THROUGH    IGNORANCE. 

The  matters  condemned  under  these  statutes  are  of  such  a 

i6 


character  that  persons  with  the  most  enlightened  conscience 
would  not  even  suspect  that  they  might  be  committing  an  offence 
against  this  law.  So,  many  become  criminals  through  the  most 
excusable  ignorance. 

Many  books  which  should  be  circulated  are  suppressed  by 
mere  threats  of  prosecution,  or  a  fear  of  it,  resulting  from 
the  fact  that  no  one  can  tell  with  certainty  what  is,  or  what 
is  not,  within  the  law.     Even  judges  in  deciding  cases  before 
them  have  reached  diflPerent  conclusions  concerning  the  ob- 
scenity of  the  very  same  book,  and  several  men  have  been  par- 
doned because  the  President  did  not  believe  a  book  to  be  ob- 
scene which  a  judge  and  jury  had  declared  to  be  so.     Some- 
times the  Postal  authorities  declare  a  book  not  to  be  obscene, 
and  some  State  official  declares  it  is  obscene,  and  arrests  the 
vendor ;  sometimes  conditions  are  reversed.    No  one  can  ever 
tell  whether  he  is  committing  a  crime  or  not.     A  book  which 
goes  through  the  Chicago  Post-Office  in  thousands  per  annum, 
is  excluded  from  the  Boston  Post-Office,  when  offered  by  the 
Boston  ag  nt  of  the  Chicago  publisher.     In   California  one 
Price  was  sent  to  jail  for  circulating  a  book  whose  substance 
was  substantially  like  that  in  the  Hicklin  case  above  described. 
In  the  Middle  West  an  ex-priest  published  another  such  book, 
containing  substantially  the  same  matter,  and  I  am  informed 
he  received  the  commendation  of  a  Post-Office  Inspector,  and 
was  assured  that  they  were  both  engaged  in  the  same  effort 
of  destroying  the  influence  of  Catholicism. 

Very  recently  another  book  by  one  of  the  best  known  lec- 
turers and  writers  upon  social  purity  and  published  for  six 
years  by  one  of  the  largest  producers  of  Evangelical  literature 
in  America,  was  suddenly  found  to  contain  matter  which 
made  them  criminals  for  every  copy  they  had  advertised  or 
sent  through  the  mails. 

Years  ago  it  was  discovered  that  the  President  of  a  Society 
for  the  Supnression  of  Vice,  in  the  regular  course  of  his  busi- 
ness, was  sendino:  through  the  mails  circulars  which  were 
clearly  prohibited  by  law.  Some  enemies  made  an  effort  to 
have  him  indicted.  Owing  to  circumstances  not  bearing  upon 
the  criminal  character  of  the  circular,  a  prosecution  was  pre- 
vented, and  the  prohibited  business  was  discontinued. 

STUDIES    IN    THE    PSYCHOLOGY    OF    SEX. 

In   England,  under  a  law  just  like  our  own  in  its  descrip- 
tion of  what  is  prohibited.  Dr.  Havelock  Ellis*  "Studies  in  the 

17 


* 


y 


/ 


|; 


Pychology  of  Sex,"  I  believe  have  been  wholly  suppressed  as 
obscene  These  studies  are  so  exhaustive  and  collect  so  much 
original  and  unusual  information  that  they  mark  an  entirely 
new  epoch  in  the  study  of  sexual  science.  The  German  edi- 
tion of  this  very  superior  treatise  is  denied  admission  into  the 
United  States,  to  protect  the  morals  and  perpetuate  the  ig- 
norance of  the  German-American  physicians.  Futhermore, 
no  one  can  doubt  that  their  exclusion  is  in  strict  accord  with 
the  letter  of  the  statute  as  the  same  is  ignorantly  interpreted 
through  the  judicial  "tests"  of  obscenity. 

That  scientifically  absurd  test  is  decisive  even  though  ap- 
plied to  a  scholarly  treatise  upon  sex,  circulated  only  within 
the  medical  profession,   for  the  statute  makes  no  exception 
in  favor  of  medical  men.     An  impartial  enforcement  of  the 
letter  of  the  law,  as  the  word  "obscene'    is  now  interpreted, 
would  entirely  extirpate  the  scientific  literature  of  sex        bo 
deeply  have  the  judges  been  impressed  with  this  possible  m- 
iquity    that  by  dictum,  quite  in  excess  of  their  power,  they 
have  made  a  judicial  amendment  of  the  statute,  excepting  from 
its  operation  books  circulated  only  among  physicians.     Such 
judicial  legislation  of  course  is  made  under  the  pretense  of 
"statutory  interpretation"  and  involves  the  ridiculous  propo- 
sition that  a  book  which  is  criminally  obscene  if  handed  to  a 
layman,  changes  its  character  if  handed  to  a  physician;  it 
assumes  that  a  scientific  knowledge  of  sex  is  dangerous  to 
the  morals  of  all  those  who  do  not  use  the  knowledge  as  a 
means  of  making  money  in  the  practice  of  medicine,  and  that 
it  becomes  a  moral  force,  when,  and  only  when,  thus  employed 
for  pecuniary  gain.     To  send  to  you  purity  workers  the  stand- 
ard scientific  literature  of  sex  is  a  crime.    You  purity  workers, 
cannot  be  trusted  to  have  accurate  information.     Public  morals 
demand  vour  ignorance.     The  suppression  of  the  American 
edition  of  '•  Studies  of  the  Psychology  of  Sex"  only  awaits  the 
concnrrence  of  caprice,  between  some  fool  reformer  and  a  stupid 
jury.     The  some  statutory  words  which  are  adequate  to  exclude 
the  German  edition  will  determine  the  suppression  of  the  Ameri- 
can edition. 

COMPATIBILITY   OF   THE   OBSCENE   AND    USEFUL. 

C     I  must  make  it  still  more  clear  to  you  that  a  book  may  be 
)"obsc«i?^WtffiSTirlS3rasl  -tesfs"  and  yet  be  a  most  use- 
Vful  book]    T-o  this  end  let  me  indulge  in  a  little  more  exact 
analysis  (.f  that  judicial  nonsense,  called  the  "test"  of  obscen- 

i8 — ' 


r — s 


/"•  <v 


^^ 


ity.  The  judicial  language  is:  "The  matter  must  be  regarded 
as  obscene  if  it  would  have  a  tendency  to  suggest  impure  and 
libidinous  thoughts  in  the  minds  of  those  open  to  the  influ- 
ence of  such  thoughts."  (U.  S.  vs.  Bennett.  Fed.  Case  14571.) 
Please  keep  that  test  in  mind  during  a  little  digression. 

What  do  we  mean  when  we  say  we  have  read  a  sentence 
understandingly?  Clearly  it  is  this,  that  we  have  translated 
the  words  into  the  mental  picture  which  they  symbolize.  If 
I  use  m  your  presence  the  word  "hemi-tetragonal-trisoctahe- 
dron  '  It  means  nothing  to  you  unless  you  can  and  do,  in  ima- 
gination, combine  the  several  forms  represented  by  the  sepa- 
rate parts  of  the  word  and  thus  reconstruct  in  your  mind  the 
image  of  some  definite  crystallographic  form. 

So  it  is  with  all  other  words.     Of  what  use  is  it  to  de- 
nounce the  "sins  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah"  to  those  who  do 
not  know   what   acts   constituted   those   sins,   and   who  may 
thmk  you  are  denouncing  a  "faith  cure"?    That  denunciation 
IS  understood  only  by  those  who  are  intelligent  listeners,  made 
such  by  their  act  of  translating  the  words  into  the  corres- 
ponding mental  picture.      The  same  is  true  of  all  sex,  or  other 
discussion.    To  a  child  not  knowing  the  meaning  of  the  words 
It  IS  the  same  if  you  say,  "Thou  shalt  not  commit  prophylaxis," 
or  "Thou  Shalt  not  commit  adultery."    The  latter  injunction 
IS  of  worth  only  as  the  hearer  knows  what  is  meant  by  adul- 
tery and  forms  a  mental  picture  to  correspond  with  the  word- 
symbol.     Necessarily  the  words  "Thou  shalt  not  commit  adul- 
tery"  "have  a  tendency  to  suggest"  the  thought  of  adultery, 
which  of  course  is  libidinous,  and  in  minds  of  diseased  sex- 
sensativeness.  "open  to  the  influence  of  such     thoughts"  it 
would  tend  to  induce  prohibited  conduct.     But,  this  corres- 
ponds to  the  judicial  "test"  of  obscenity,  and  it     follows,  if 
we  had  an  impartial  application  of  this  absurd  "test,"  the  ten 
commandments  must  be  suppressed    as  "obscene." 

I  UNCERTAINTY  IN  THE  CRIMINAL  LAW. 

-y  Under  a  law  of  such  vagueness,  and  such  all-inclusiveness, 
nothmg  can  escape  suppression,  except  as  a  matter  of  iudi- 
ciaMiscretion. '^Men  are  prosecuted  and  punished  as  criminals 
not  according  to  the  letter  of  any  general  law,  but  according  to 
the  whim,  caprice,  prejudices  or  personal  malice,  of  inform- 
ers, courts  and  juries,  whose  judgment  in  such  matters  neces- 
sarily becomes  legislative,  and  not  executory,  and  is  alwavs 
applied  ex  post  facto,  so  that  no  man  can  tell  in  advance  of  his 


:«! 


19 


arrest  and  trial  whether  he  is  committing  an  offence  or  not, 
because  no  man  can  tell  in  advance  what  will  be  another  man  s 
opinion  as  to  a  speculative  question  about  the  psychologic  ten- 
dency of  a  book. 

It  is  high  time  that  courts  annulled  this  infamous  law  by 
applying  the  old  maxim  "Where  the  law  is  uncertam  there  is 
no  law." 

ON  THE  "sexual  NECESSITY". 

I  would  deceive  your  reasonable  expectations  if  I  failed 
to  deal  frankly  with  you  in  this  little  heart  to  heart  talk  I 
can  be  helpful  only  as  I  broaden  your  outlook  by  calling  atten- 
tion to  view-points  usually  overlooked.  In  justice  to  you  1 
must  present  another  question  which  is  generally  slighted  and 
which  I  do  not  assume  to  decide  for  you.  I  mention  it  only 
that  you  may  think  it  over  at  your  leisure. 

It  was  late  in  life  with  me  before  I  heard  of  the  existence 
of  the  doctrine  that  for  the  average  person  life  long  contin- 
ence was  incompatible  with  the  best  health.     My  first  infor- 
mation, that  anyone  believed  this,  came  to  me  through  a  tract 
of  the  Woman's  Christian  Temperance  Union,  in  which  the 
doctrine  was  denied.     I  remember  thinking  that  theirs  must 
be  a  doubtful  cause,  which  relied  not  on  fact  and  argument 
but  upon  an  extremely  short   dogmatic   statement,   followed 
by  a  long  list  of  eminent  names  evidently  intended  to  inspire 
awe  and  preclude  rational  inquiry.    The  general  circulation 
of  the   contrary  opinion   would   probably   be   criminal,  even 
though  it  could  be  proven  to  be  true.     Should  we  also  remove 

this  barrier?    Let  us  see. 

In  recent  years  I  have  looked  a  little  farther  into  this  mat- 
ter and  find  that  the  statements  to  the  general  fubhc  endors- 
ing the  compatibility  of  health  and  continence  are  perhaps 
most  willingly  made  by  specialists  in  venereal  infections.  There 
are  those  physicians  who  doubt  the   statement,  yet  justify 
falsehood  in  the  matter.     On  the  other  hand,  a  majority  of 
books  written   for  the  medical  profession   upon   sexual  psy- 
chology, nervous  diseases,  and  insanity,  if  they  are  not  silent 
upon  the  matters,  indicate  that  lifelong  continence,  and  per- 
fect health  are  incompatible  except  for  the  very  few  exception- 
ally conditioned. 

Evidently  it  requires  more  careful  observation,  more  ac- 
curately collected  data,  more  exactness  of  statement,  and  more 
closely  reasoned  argument  than  we  have  yet  had.  to  settle  this 

20 


question.  This  in  turn  requires  more  freedom  of  the  press 
than  we  now  enjoy.  Many  of  you  remember  the  arrest  in 
1889  of  the  editor  of  'The  Christian  Life"  for  pubHshing  an 
argument  for  ^'Marital  Purity"  written  by  the  Rev.  C  E 
.  Walker.  No  doubt  an  argument  for  the  "sexual  necessity" 
would  also  be  suppressed  as  obscene.  However  that  is  not  yet 
the  precise  problem  which  I  wish  to  leave  with  you,  though  it 
suggests  the  other. 

Sometimes  we  are  led  into  error  by  looking  too  intently 
upon  one  consequence  of  our  conduct,  instead  of  weighing  all 
consequences.  I  suggest  to  you  that  you  take  a  second  thought 
concerning  your  desire  to  circulate  the  assurance  that  life- 
long continence  and  health  are  compatible,  and  also  that  after 
mature  reconsideration,  you  ask  yourself  over  again  if  we 
had  not  better  repeal  the  law  which  now  suppresses  the  pub- 
lication of  any  disucssion  of  the  suject. 

If  you  expect  to  be  believed  when  you  assert  the  compati- 
bility  of   health   and   continence,   then   you   are   making   the 
strongest  possible  argument  against  marriage  itself,  because 
you  are  asserting  that  there  is  no  natural  necessity   for  it. 
Since  scientists  are  not  agreed  upon  this  question,  it  is  at 
least  a  little  presumptipus  for  anyone,  especially  laymen    to 
dogmatize  about  it.     Under  the  circumstances,  you  cannot 
be  certain  that  your  advice,  if  followed,  will  not  prove  a  pit- 
fall  to  the  average  person,  because  conducing  to  auto-erotism, 
hysteria,  eroto-mania,  sexual  perversion,  and  other  horrors! 
There  is  one  question  to  which  you  should  give  some  deliber- 
ate and  dispassionate  consideration,  earnestly  endeavoring  to 
avoid  self-deception.     The  need  for  this  will  grow  upon  you 
with  reflection.     That  question  is  this :    Until  medical  men  arc 
agreed  upon  the  facts,  may  it  not  be  just  as  well  for  us  to 
argue   the   natural   necessity   for   monogamy,   by   urging  the 
great  danger  of  promiscuity,  and  admitting  the  "sexual  neces- 
sity?"    Surely  the  two  together  make  a  most  potent  induce- 
ment to  marriage,  whereas  to  deny  the  latter  is  to  say  that 
marriage  is  unnecessary,   which  conviction  may  in   the  end 
lead  to  many  solitary  and  social  vices,  in  those  who  should 
mi.stake  our  good  motives  for  great  wisdom.     Above  all  we 
must  learn  the  facts.  This  we  can  do  only  by  encouraging  phy- 
sicians to  be  frank.     Scientists  must  be  permitted  and  inspired 
to  tell  us  in  public  what  they  think  in  private,  about  the  com- 
patibility of  life-long  continence  and  health. 


2T 


Ml 


fi 


THE  MORE  UNPLEASANT  FEATURES. 

This,  then,   brings  me  to  the  more  unpleasant   features, 
which  relate  to  sexual  insanities,  and  venereal  infection.     No 
one  worthy  to  be  counted  a  purity-worker  can  overlook  these 
most  important  phases  of  the  sex  problem.     Here  I  must  ex- 
press my  very  great  satisfaction  in  being  permitted  to  first 
deliver  this  discourse  to  you  earnest  men  and  women,  who 
without  trembling,  seek  the  truth  for  the  good  it  may  enable 
you  to  do.     Like  all  truly  pure  minded  people  you  have  ban- 
ished the  phantoms  of  a  prurient  fear.    Among  you  there  can 
be  no  need  for  the  secretiveness  of  diplomacy,  the  methods  of 
indirection  and  innuendo,  nor  the  hypocracy  of  evasion.     If 
these  artifices  were  necessary  I  should  not  have  accepted  this 
invitation  to  address  you,  because  I  am  not  skilled  in  such 
methods.     I  know  only  the  use  of  the  plain,  direct,  and  scien- 
tifically chaste  manner  of  speech.     It  is  only  by  the  use  of 
such  that  I  can  proceed,  while  I  briefly  recapitulate  some  con- 
crete facts  known  to  the  medical  profession,  and  by  me  culled 
from  standard  medical  authorities. 

SEX   IGNORANCE  AND  INSANITY. 

Picque  found  a  proportion  of  88%  of  gynecological  aflfec 
tion  among  the  insane,  and  some  have,  found  even  more.     It 
is  quite  generally  estimated  that  of  all  insanities  66%  involve 
the  sexual  mechanism  or  functioning.    Where  sex  is  the  prim- 
ary cause  of  the  ultimate  derangement,  sex-intelligence  usu- 
ally could  wholly  preclude  the  evil  consequences,  or  find  an 
early  cure.     In  other  cases  where  there  is  some  sexual  de- 
rangement it  is  at  first  but  a  symptom  of  mental  ailment,  only 
in  turn   to  become   an   aggravating  cause.     Here  a   greater 
intelligence  on  the  part  of  friends  and  family,  such  as  the  gen- 
eral dissemination  of  the  literature  of  sexual  science  would 
produce,  will  enable  them  to  understand  what  now  seems  du- 
bious, and  impel  them  to  apply  much  earlier  for  medical  aid, 
when  it  would  be  far  more  efficacious.    Legislators  *id  courts 
now  treat  the  sex-pervert  as  a  criminal,  thereby  discrediting 
both  our  intelligence  and  our  humanity.     In  an  enlightened 
community  we  will  know  that  usually  such  are  diseased,  and 
thus  be  prompted  to  restore  them,  rather  than  wreak  vengence 
upon  them. 

SUFFERING  OF  THE  VICIOUS  TO  SAFEGUARD  VIRTUE. 

A  Study  of  venereal  infection  gives  us  some  appalling  re- 

22 


suits.     Every  year  in  our  country  perhaps  hundreds  of  thou- 
sands  of  persons  become  its  victims.     Owing  to  public  ignor- 
ance  and  a  mawkish  sentimentalism,  many  of  these  persons 
cannot  secure  treatment  from  the  regular  physician,  nor  wiU 
be  received  in  many  hospitals.     It  is  argued  that  to  make  them 
suffer  the  penalty  of  vice  is  the  best  safeguard  to  virtue.     Even 
It  the  transgressors  were  the  only  sufferers,  it  would  still  be 
an   unpardonable   inhumanity   not   to   cure   them   if  possible, 
because  m  such  cases  they  too  often  suffer  in  the  inverse  ratio 
of  their  familiarity  with  the  vicious.     More  general  educa- 
tion conduces  to  more  justice  in  fitting  the  natural  punishment 
o  the  crime.     All  disease  is  the  result  of  some  form  of  vicious 
hving,  and  if  we  are  to  be  guided  by  such  irrational  afforisms, 
we  must  abstain  altogether  from  trying  to  relieve  human  suf- 
tering.     The  pains  of  dyspepsia  or  rheumatism  must  be  en- 
dured lest  by  their  cure  we  make  vicious  eating  safe ;  dipso- 
mania and   delirium  tremens   must   remain   uncured   lest  we 
make  alcoholic  beverages  safe. 

VENEREAL  INFECTION  AND  SUFFERING  OF  THE  INNOCENT.* 

When  we  come  to  consider  the  suffering  which  is  unneces- 
sarily inflicted  on  the  ignorant,  innocent,  by  adherence  to  this 
absurd  dogma,  then  the  public^s  indifference  toward  the  cure 
of  venereal  diseases  becomes  almost  criminal.  It  is  not  in- 
frequent that  a  syphilitic  child  will  infect  its  uninformed  nurse 
or  an  infected  wet  nurse  not  knowing  her  own  condition  trans-' 
mits  the  disease  to  the  child  under  her  care.  Unnumbered 
persons  become  infected  merely  by  a  common  use  of  eating 
dnnking,  or  toilet  utensils.    • 

That  you  may  i)roperIy  understand  just  how  infamous  is 
the  taboo  which  we  have  placed  upon  this  subject  let  me  go 
more  into  detail,  and  here  I  charge  you  specially  to  observe 
the  suffering  of  the  innocent.  Eighty  per  cent,  of  the  blind- 
ness of  the  new  born,  and  twenty  per  cent,  of  this  terrible  af- 
fliction from  all  causes,  is  due  to  gonococcus  infection,  as  also 
is  a  large  proportion  of  vulvo-vaginitis  and  joint  affections  of 
children.     Dr.  Neisser  estimates  that  at  present  there  are  in 

♦Practically  all  of  this  information, about  venereal  infection 
IS  taken  from  "Social  Diseases  and  Marriage,"  by  Dr.  Prince 
Morrow,  and  from  the  publications  of  the  Am.  Soc.  for  Sani- 
tary  and  Moral  Proplylais,  of  which  he  is  President. 

23 


»l 


r  Ti 


Germany  about  30,000  blind  persons  who  owe  their  affliction  to 
this  cause.    In  America  no  statistics  are  available. 

Pinnard  found  that  in  10,000  consecutive  cases  of  miscar- 
riage or  abortions  42^0  were  caused  by  syphilis,  the  remain- 
ing 58%  were  due  to  all  other  causes  combined.  The  mortal- 
ity from  hereditary  syphilis  ranges  from  60  to  809b,  while 
those  who  survive  are  affected  with  degenerative  changes 
which  unfit  them  for  the  battle  of  Hfe.  Syphilis  in  France 
alone,  kills  every  year  20,000  children,  or  7/2%  of  the  mor- 
Ulity  from  all  causes  combined.  It  is  computed  that  50^0 
of  all  gonorrheal  women  are  absolutely  sterile,  and  gonor- 
rheally  infected  men  are  responsible  for  20%  of  the  involun- 
tary sterile  marriages.  Sixty  per  cent,  of  the  children  born 
of  syphilitic  mothers  die  in  utero,  or  soon  after  birth.  Only 
two  in  five  will  survive  even  through  a  short  life ;  20  to  30% 
of  gonorrheally  infected  women  abort  and  from  45  ^o  50% 
are  rendered  irrevocable  sterile. 

Foumier's    general    statistics,    embracing    all    classes    of 
women,  show  that  one  in  every  five  syphilitic  women  con- 
tracted  syphilis   from   their  husbands    soon   after   marnage. 
Among  the  married  females  in  his  private  practice,  in  75%  of 
the  cases  the  disease  was  unmistakably  traced  to  the  husband. 
D.  Bulkle/s  statistics,  in  "Syphihs  in  the  Innocent,"  state  that 
in  private  practice  fully  50%  oi  all  females  with  syphilis,  ac- 
quired it  in  a  perfect^   innocent  manner,  while  in  the  married 
females  85%  contracted  it  from  their  husbands.     The  report 
of  a  medical  committee  of  seven  gave  it  as  from  30  to  60% 
of  the  syphilitic  women  who  had  the  disease  communicated 
by  the  husband.     Dr.  Morrow  in  his  experience  in  the  New 
York  Hospital  found  that  70%  of  the  women  who  applied  for 
treatment  for  syphilis  were  married  and  claimed  to  have  re- 
ceived the  disease  from  their  husbands.     60%  of  all  gynocolo- 
gic  surgical  operations  are  chargeable  to  gonococcic  infection. 
To  emphasize  the  danger  which  comes  to  the  innocent  from 
the  infamous  and  ignorant  conspiracy  of  silence,  let  me  qu^e 
these  awful  words  from  a  specialist  of  high  authority.     He 
says  •  "It  mav  be  a  startling  statement  but  nevertheless  true, 
that  there  is'  more  venereal  infection  among  virtuous^  wives 
than  among  professional  prostitutes  in  this  country."    The 
latter  being  the  more  intelligent  in  such  matters  use  personal 
propylaxis,  and  secure  treatment  eariier  after  infection,  while 
the  ignorant  virtuous  wife  continues  to  suffer  in  silence.     In 

24 


view  of  this  appalling  condition  what  are  you  going  to  say 
to  those  moral  sentimentalizers^  who  for  fear  of  making  vice 
safe,  seek  to  penalize  all  announcements  that  venereal  diseases 
can  be  cured?  Will  you  by  education  help  protect  the  inno- 
cent sufferers  or  will  you  through  moral  cowardice  give  silent 
support  to  the  infamous  taboo  upon  sexual  education? 


THE   "MUSEUM   OF  ANATOMY^', 


Connected  with  this  subject  of  publicity  about  venereal 
infection,  and  its  relation  to  purity,  I  shall  presume  to  relate 
a  personal  experience.  When  a  boy  of  15  years,  I  left  the  pa- 
rental home  to  find  work  in  Chicago. 

I  soon  discovered  here  a  Museum  of  Anatomy  conducted 
by  one  of  those  persons  whom  we  contemptuously  call 
**quacks",  because  they  advertise  their  willingness  to  treat 
diseases  which  many  compassionless  moral  snobs  in  the  medi- 
cal profession  refuse  to  treat,  which  refusal  as  I  have  shown 
results  in  so  much  suffering  to  the  innocent. 

In  this  Museum,  for  a  trifling  admission  fee,  I  saw  perfect 
imitations  in  wax  of  all  the  indescribable  horrors,  consequent 
upon  venereal  infection.  Of  course  the  exhibition  was  ob- 
scene and  indecent  beyond  description,  but  it  was  something 
more  as  well.  It  was  an  object  lesson  giving  occular  demon- 
stration of  the  terrible  consequence  of  promiscuity  and  could 
not  do  otherwise  than  to  inspire  a  wholesome  fear  of  which 
I  have  not  rid  myself  to  this  day.  The  vividness  of  the  im- 
pression produced  by  one  such  sight  would  far  surpass  all 
the  moral  and  religious  sermons  that  could  be  preached  from 
now  till  doomsday,  because  the  innuendos  or  even  the  direct 
statements  can  mean  nothing  to, the  child-mind,  before  it  is 
possessed  of  the  experience  which  enables  it  to  translate  the 
words  into  corresponding  metal  pictures. 

Nowadays  such  museums  are  suppressed  because  of  their 
obscenity.  It  is  deserving  of  consideration  whether  such 
forces  for  good  had  not  better  be  encouragred  by  their  attach- 
ment to  our  public  schools,  in  preference  to  their  suppression 
because  shocking. 

INTELLIGENCE  AS  TO  VENEREAL  DISEASE  SUPPRESSED. 

I  have  now  shown  the  practical  operation  of  the  doctrine 
that  to  make  men  suflFer  the  penalties  of  vice  is  the  best  safe- 
guard to  virtue,  yet  if  you  would  issue  general  instructions 
for  the  detection  of  venereal  infection,  or  for  personal  pro- 

25 


li- 


phylaxis,  all  prurient  sentimentalists,  would  say  you  are  mak- 
ing vice  safe,  you  must  go  to  jdl  for  your  "obscenity"  and 
the  "immoral  tendency"  of  your  book.  Thus  it  is  that  the  in- 
nocent must  continue  to  suffer,  and  the  family  physician  con- 
tinues to  lie  to  the  wronged  wife,  in  order  to  protect  her  hus- 
band, and  maintain  the  "sanctity"  of  such  a  home.  Infected 
husbands  must  be  screened  at  any  cost  of  suffering  to  the  in- 
nocent wife  and  children,  simply  because  we  are  afraid  that 
someone  will  say  we  are  trying  to  safeguard  vice. 

In  many  states  efforts  have  been  made,  and  have  almost 
succeeded,  by  which  it  would  be  criminal  even  in  a  hospital 
report  or  a  professional  treatise  on  venereal  disease  to  make 
it  known  where  or  how  sexual  ailments  could  be  cured,  and  the 
excuse  offered  is  that  such  information  tends  to  make  vice  safe. 

Recently  a  distinguished  purity  worker  connected  with  this 
conference  issued  a  wholesome  little  pamphlet  entitled  "Not  a 
toothache  or  a  bad  cold,"  which  was  suppressed  by  threat  of 
arrest,  though  the  Post-Office  authorities  had  declared  it  mail- 
able. » 

Quite  a  number  of  physicians  have  been  arrested  and  con- 
victed for  sending  through  the  mails  information  as  to  vener- 
eal diseases.  One  of  these  books,  which  serves  as  a  type  for 
all,  has  been  thus  described  by  a  former  assistant  Attorney  Gen- 
eral of  the  Post  Office  Department.  He  says  the  book  "con- 
sisted mainly  of  a  description  of  the  causes  and  effects  of  ven- 
ereal diseases,  and  secondly  two  circulars  one  of  which  de- 
scribed in  separate  paragraphs  the  symptoms  of  various  ven- 
ereal diseases."     That  was  held  to  be  criminal. 

"The  Social  Peril.'*  is  a  book  dealing  with  venereal  infection, 
and  is  by  one  of  the  best  known  purity  workers  in  America. 
Mr.  Comstock  threatened  him  with  arrest  for  "obscenity'' 
partly  for  a  15  page  quotation  from  a  book  by  Rev.  Henry 
Ward  Beecher.     The  book  is  suppressed. 


DEMAND  OPPORTUNITY   FOR   KNOWLEDGE. 

I  have  tried  to  point  out  the  urgency  for  general  education 
and  the  laws  which  preclude  it.  I  cannot  doubt  that  you  are 
quite  convinced  that  the  situation  is  sufficiently  grave  to  de- 
mand an  immediate  change  if  we  would  maintain  a  semblance 
of  purity.  I  submit  that  a  decent  regard  for  the  moral  wel- 
fare of  the  community,  or  for  the  innocent  sufferers  of  vener- 
eal infection,  compels  us  to  demand  for  the  general  public 

26 


such  liberty  of  the  press,  and  other  means  of  publicity,  as  will 
protect  each  in  his  right  to  learn  and  to  know,  just  how  terri- 
ble are  the  ravages  of  these  diseases — how  their  presence  may 
be  detected^and  that  they  can  be  cured. 

ON  THE  DANGERS  OF  LIBERTY. 

It  is  perhaps  apparent  to  you  that  our  present  tests  of  ob- 
scenity are  grossly  ridiculous  in  their  results  if  impartially  ap- 
plied, and  1  am  sorry  to  confess  that  I  cannot  furnish  a  better, 
because  what  is  deemed  objectionable  is  always  a  personal  mat- 
ter which  cannot  be  defined  in  general  terms.  Furthermore, 
no  man  can  tell  a  priori,  what  is  of  bad  tendency.  If  you 
have  received  the  right  training  from  your  parents  or  precep- 
tors, even  the  worst  bawdy  picture  may  produce  a  wholesome 
revulsion.  Once  open  the  door  to  all  serious  discussions  of 
sex,  and  soon  the  healthy  curiosity  will  be  satisfied,  which  now 
becomes  morbid  only  from  the  denial  of  satisfaction.  No  one 
thinks  of  caricaturing  the  reproductive  mechanism  of  our  do- 
mestic animals  only  because  no  one  has  any  morbid  curiosity 
about  it,  because  there  is  no  concealment.  With  the  develop- 
ment of  healthy  mindedness  through  sexual  education  in  our 
schools,  all  morbidity  of  curiosity  would  disappear  in  one  gen- 
eration. The  demonstration  of  this  is  to  be  found  among  art 
students. 

Years  ago  when  it  was  proposed  to  prohibit  the  sending  of 
abolition  literature  through  the  mails,  because  of  its  "immoral" 
tendency  toward  insurrection,  the  Hon.  John  P.  King,  a 
United  States  Senator  from  the  South,  protested  and  said:  "I 
prefer  the  enjoyment  of  a  rational  liberty  at  the  price  of  vigi- 
lance and  at  the  risk  of  occasional  trouble,  by  the  error  of  mis- 
^  guided  or  bad  citizens,  to  the  repose  which  is  enjoyed  in  the 
sleep  of  despotism."  With  this  I  concur.  Liberty  has  dangers 
of  its  own,  which  we  must  overcome,  or  forego  progress.  If  we 
have  confidence  that  we  have  right  on  our  side,  we  need  not 
fear  open  discussion  and  warfare  with  error. 

CRADDOCK  AND  STOCKHAM   CASES. 

As  illustrating  how  our  fears  are  often  but  the  product 
of  ignorance,  I  am  going  to  relate  to  you  how  and  why  I 
changed  my  mind  about  two  booklets  pronounced  "the  most 
obscene"  that  ever  came  to  the  criminal  court.  If  these  really 
are  the  most  offensive  of  condemned  literature  then  I  am  pre- 
pared to  stand  all  the  rest.    Both  were  entitled  "The  Wedding 


27 


I 


Night",  and  dealt  with  their  subject  in  a  very  deUiled  manner. 
One  was  by  an  unfortunate  woman  named  Ida  Craddock,  who 
styled  herself  a  "purity  lecturer/'  Mr.  Comstock  denounced 
her  book  as  "the  science  of  seduction.*'  It  could  have  been 
more  accurately  described,  as  advice  for  the  best  me«ms  of  con- 
summating the  marriage.  The  judge  who  sentenced  the  au- 
thor called  it  "indescribably  obscene."  To  one  who,  from 
diseased  sex-sensitiveness,  is  incapable  of  reading  a  discussion 
of  sex  functioning  with  the  same  equanimity  as  would  ac- 
company a  discussion  of  lung  functioning,  or  to  one  who 
would  apply  the  absurd  judicial  ''tests"  of  obscenity,  this 
booklet  must  appear  just  as  these  men  described  it.  Of  course 
she  was  found  guilty.  Later  she  committed  suicide  to  escape 
the  penalty  of  the  law. 

For  the  book  Mrs.  .Craddock  claimed  to  have  the  endorse- 
ment of  several  prominent  members  of  the  Woman's  Chris- 
tian Temperance  Union,  and  published  a  letter  from  the  Rev. 
W.  S.  Rainsford,  the  very  distinguished  rector  of  the  fash- 
ionable St.  George's  Episcopal  Church  of  New  York  City,  in 
which  he  said :  "This  much  I  will  say,  I  am  sure  if  all  young 
people  read  carefully  The  Marriage  Night,'  much  misery,  sor- 
row, and  disappointment  could  be  avoided." 

The  other  booklet  was  by  Dr.  Alice  Stockham,  the  well 
known  author  of  Tokology  and  similar  books,  and  in  name 
and  substance,  I  believe  it  was  very  much  like  the  Craddock 
book.  A  Post  Office  Inspector  pronounced  it  the  most  obscene 
book  he  had  ever  read.  She  was  convicted  and  heavily  fined, 
though  with  many  friends  she  vigorously  defended  the  pro- 
priety and  necessity  for  her  booklet  of  instructions.  Of  course 
neither  of  these  books  nor  any  like  them  are  now  anywhere 
to  be  had. 

The  question  is  what  good  could  be  done  by  such  books, 
so  unquestionably  obscene,  if  judged  by  present  judicial  stand- 
ards? I  confess  that  when  first  I  heard  of  these  cases  I  knew 
of  no  excuse  for  the  existence  of  this  unpleasant  literature. 

I  had  read  in  medical  literature  statements  like  this :  "The 
shock  and  suflFering  endured  bv  the  younier  wife,  in  the  nup- 
tial bed,  is  too  frequently  prolonged  into  after-life,  and  may 
seriously  mar  the  connubial  bliss."  (The  Sexual  Life  p.  127.) 
Such  generalizations  however  meant  nothing  to  me  until  a 
strange  set  of  circumstances  came  to  my  notice  which  I  will 
relate  to  you  in  the  order  of  their  occurrence. 

28 


It 


>' 


k 


Not  long  since  I  learned  of  the  marriage  of  persons  in  a 
most  conservative  social  set.  The  couple  had  been  chums 
since  childhood  and  engaged  lovers  for  many  years.  After 
this  long  waiting,  came  the  joyously  anticipated  wedding, 
and  the  bride  was  the  ideal  picture  of  radiant  love.  The  day 
after  her  marriage,  she  acted  strangely,  and  by  evening,  her 
husband  and  relatives  concluded  that  her  reason  had  been  de- 
throned, and  ever  since,  she  has  been  confined  in  a  sanitarium. 
Through  her  incoherent  speech,  only  one  thing  is  sure  and  con- 
stant, and  that  is  that  she  never  again  wants  to  see  her  hus- 
band. More  information  is  not  given  to  the  conservative  cir- 
cle of  her  friends.  All  profess  ignorance  as  to  the  immediate 
cause  of  this  strange  mania,  which  reverses  the  ambition,  hope, 
and  love  of  a  lifetime. 

Strangely  enough,  within  two  days  after  hearing  this  pain- 
ful story,  a  friend  handed  me  the  Pacific  Medical  Journal,  for 
January,  1906.  (Article  by  R.  W.  Shufeldt,  M.  D.,  Major 
Medical  Department  of  U.  S.  Army,  and  Trustee  of  the  Medi- 
co-Legal Society  of  New  York).  Therein  I  read  the  follow- 
ing paragraphs  and  to  me  the  mystery  had  been  solved.  Now 
I  thought  I  knew  why  one  bride  had  her  love  turned  to  hate, 
her  mind  ruined,  and  why  her  relatives  were  so  shamefacedly 
silent,  lest  some  should  learn  a  useful  lesson  from  their  afflic- 
tion. 

The  material  portion  of  the  article  reads  as  follows :  "While 
upon  this  point  I  would  say  that  under  the  so-called  sanctity 
of  the  Christian  marriage,  untold  thousands  of  the  most  brutal 
rapes  have  been  perpetrated,  more  brutal  and  fiendish  indeed, 
than  many  a  so-named  criminal  rape.  So  outrageous  has  been 
the  defloration  of  many  a  young  gid-wife  by  her  husband, 
that  she  has  been  invalided  and  made  unhappy  for  the  balance 
of  her  natural  life.  There  are  cases  on  record  where  so  vio- 
lently has  the  act  of  copulation  been  performed  that  the  hymen 
being  thick  and  but  slightly  perforated,  death  has  followed 
its  forcible  rupture,  and  the  nervous  shock  associated  with  the 
infamous  proceeding.  Here  the  criminally  ignorant  young 
husband  and  the  ravisher  are  at  par,  and  no  censure  that  the 
world  can  mete  out  to  them  can  be  too  great." 

And  now  I  thought  T  had  received  new  light  on  those 
strange  and  not  infrequent  accounts  one  reads  in  the  news- 
papers, of  young  women  who  commit  suicide  during  their 
"honeymoon." 

29 


'(* 


A 


,  ^.af^-' — 


i , 


'^'^^ 


Here  another  strange  chance  led  me  upon  Dr.  Mary 
Walker's  book  **Unniasked,  or  the  Science  of  Immorality," 
where  I  read  the  following  paragraph:  "There  are  instances 
of  barrenness,  where  the  only  cause  has  been  the  harshness 
of  husbands  on  wedding  nights.  The  nerves  of  the  vagina 
were  so  shocked  and  partially  paralyzed  that  they  never  re- 
covered the  magnetic  power  to  foster  the  life  of  the  spermatozoa 
until  the  conception  was  perfected.*' 

With   this  much   I   went   to  a   physician    friend,   and   he 
promptly  confirmed  all  that  had  been  said  by  the  others  and 
handed  me  ''Hygiene  of  the  Sexual  Functions,  a  lecture  de- 
livered in  the  regular  course  at  JeflFerson  Medical  College  of 
Philadelphia,  by  Theophilus  Parvin,  A.  D.,  M.  D.,  Professor 
of  Obstetrics  and  Diseases  of  Women  and  Children."     On 
page  two  I  read  the  following :  "Occasionally  you  read  in  the 
newspapers  that  the  bride  of  a  night  or  of  a  few  days,  or  of 
a  few  weeks,  has  gone  home  to  her  parents,  and  never  to  re- 
turn to  her  husband ;  but  there  is  a  Chicago  divorce  conclud- 
ing the  history.     One  of  the  most  distinguished  French  physi- 
cians, Bertillon,  has  recently  said  that  every  year,  in  France, 
he  knows  of  thirty  to  forty  applications  for  divorce  within  the 
first  year  of  marriage,  and  he  has  reason  to  believe  that  a 
majority  of  these  are  from  the  brutalities  of  the  husband  in 
the  first  sexual  intercourse." 

After  reading  these  statements  from  highly  reputable  phy- 
sicians, I  could  no  longer  doubt  that  these  "most  obscene" 
books  ever  published,  were  really  most  humanitarian  efforts 
on  the  part  of  those  who  perhaps  had  a  wider  knowledge  than 
I  possessed.  If  this  is  the  worst,  I  am  prepared  to  take 
chances  on  lesser  obscenity. 

WHAT   SHOULD    BE    DONE    ABOUT    IT. 

This  then  brings  us  to  the  question  as  to  what  we  can  do 
or  should  do  to  improve  the  situation.     The  answer  to  the 
question    necessarily    depends    upon    what    ends    you    have 
in  view.    It  seems  to  me  that  first  and  foremost,  it  should  be 
desired  that  whatever  may  be  the  law  upon  the  subject,  it 
shall  be  made  so  certain  as  to  what  is  prohibited,   that  every 
\  person  of  average  intelligence  by  the   mere   reading  of  the 
\statute  may  know  whether  he  is  violating  the  law  or  not.  This 
of  course  implies  the  abolition  of  our  present  "tests''  of  ob- 
scenity, which  makes  guilt  depend  upon  the  jury's  speculative 
opinion  about  a  doubtful  psychologic  tendency.  V 


'^  -> 


30 


4- 


V 


t  I 


/  I  know  of  no  method  by  which  such  tendencies  can,  with 
certainly,  be  determined  in  advance  of  actual  experience  with 
the  particular  book  or  picture,  and  even  then  there  can  be  no 
method  by  which  we  may  with  certainty  balance  the  evil 
.  effects  upon  some  minds  against  the  beneficial  effects jupon 
other  minds,  both  being  the  result  of  the  same  book^f  Per- 
sonally, it  seems  to  me,  that  every  adult  has  the  same  right  as 
every  other  to  select  for  himself  or  herself  whatever  literature 
or  art  they  may  see  fit  to  enjoy.  This  equality  of  right  does 
not  obtain  in  the  favor  of  minors.  What  they  shall  be  per- 
mitted to  know  or  read  is  properly  a  matter  of  discretion  with 
others.   . 

Those  who  reason  sanely  it  seems  must  conclude  that 
when  any  person  is  old  enough  by  law  to  enter  matrimony, 
which  involves  actual  sex  experience,  then  they  should  be 
conclusively  presumed  competent  to  choose  for  themselves  the 
quantity  and  quality  of  psychic  sex  stimuli  they  wish  to  have, 
and  whether  it  shall  come  through  the  means  of  good  or  bad 
art,  literature,  drama,  or  music.  It  is  not  clear  to  me  why  we 
should  seek  by  law  to  control  the  sexual  imaginings  of  those 
persons  to  whom  it  accords  a  perfect  right  to  sexual  relations.  | 

I  can  even  see  force  in  the  methods  of  the  ancient  Greeks 
who  believed  that  dancing  and  athletics  in  nudity  conduced  to 
honored  marriage.  Upon  this  subject  the  Rev.  John  Potter, 
late  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  has  this  to  say:  "As  for  the 
virgins  appearing  naked,  there  was  nothing  disgraceful  in  it, 
because  everything  was  conducted  with  modesty,  and  without 
one  indecent  word  or  action.  Nay,  it  caused  a  simplicity  of 
manners  and  an  emulation  of  the  best  habit  of  body;  their 
ideas,  too,  were  naturally  enlarged,  while  they  were  not  ex- 
cluded from  their  share  of  bravery  and  honour.  Hence  they 
were  furnished  with  sentiments  and  language,  such  as  Gorgo, 
the  wife  of  Leonidas,  is  said  to  have  made  use  of.  When  a 
woman  of  another  country  said  of  her.  'You  of  Lacedaemon, 
are  the  only  women  in  the  world  that  rule  the  men,'  she 
answered,  'We  are  the  only  women  that  bring  forth  men.' " 
(Archaeologia  Graeca,  p.  645,  Glasgow,  1837.) 

Those  who  esteem  mere  psychic  lasciviousness  a  more 
serious  offense  than  the  corresponding  physical  actuality, 
lay  themselves  open  to  be  justly  accused  of  erotomania. 
How  can  we  expect  even  married  people  to  live  wholesome 


31 


V 


M 


1? 
i 


I 


•^'•'T  '•    "III    T'w   nuiiliilMiIMM 


rr 


supremacy.  '°  ^'^PP'"  ^'^^  each  other' for 

By  giving  the  widest  possible  scone  for  ft,„  ^-         •     '  • 
a-nong  adults,  of  the  scienSfic  ntl^Tjrs.Tj:ZlT'7 
».g  appropriate  instn.ction  in  our  pubh^J^^l  ^S  pTs':  t" 

dreaHpH    o«^  ♦u  ^         ^'^  ^"^  "^'^  ^hich  are  now 

so  nil  nt  ov^STtlrur  '""'"^^""  ^°"'^  ''^  "- 
Pubh-c  morals'  Thus  thro:,  e^rUtSfhrrt"^''^^^^^^^^  '" 
press  for  the  instruction  of  all  over  8  ve.rs  "^f  "'"""''  '"'' 
reasonably  hope  to  secure  for  th.  f  ^  °^  ^^''  ^"  ""^-^ 
«.n<.H  <.^„c„-  "^  "^''^  generation  an  enlieht- 

ened  consc.ence  as  to  all  questions  of  sexual  health  and  mofals. 


32 


i 


WHAT   IS   CRIMINALLY    "OBSCENE"? 
By  Theodore  Schroeder. 


This  essay  was  a  part  of  the  proceedings  of  the  XV  Congres  International  de 
Medicine,  section  XVI  Medicine  Legale,  held  ac  Lisbon,  Poriugal,  April,  1906,  and 
also  publislied  iu  the  Albany  Law  Journal  for  July,  l90d. 

The  English  Parliament,  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States,  and  all  the  States  of  the  American  Union,  have  pen- 
alized "lewd,  indecent  and  obscene"  literature  and  art.  All 
this  legislation,  and  the  judicial  interpretation  of  it,  proceeds 
upon  the  assumption  (false  assumption,  as  I  believe)  that 
such  words  as  "obscene"  stand  for  real  qualities  of  literature, 
such  as  are  sense  perceived,  and,  therefore,  permit  of  exact 
general  definition  or  tests,  such  as  are  capable  of  universal  ap- 
pUcation,  producing  absolute  uniformity  of  result,  no  matter 
by  whom  the  definition  or  test  is  applied,  to  every  book  of 

question^le  "purity." 

Under  these  laws,  as  administered  in  England  and  Amer- 
ica, every  medical  book  which  treats  of  sex— and  many  which 
do 'not— are  declared  criminal,  and  their  circulation  even 
among  professionals  is  a  matter  of  tolerance,  in  spite  of  the 
law,  and  not  a  matter  of  right  under  the  law.  The  infamy  of 
such  a  statute  has  induced  some  American  coflrts,  under  the 
guise  of  "interpretation,**  to  amend  the  statute  judicially,  so 
as  to  exempt  some  medical  book,  otherwise  "obscene,"  from 
being  criminal  if  circulated  only  among  some  professional 
men.  What  the  judicial  legislation  will  be,  must  always  de- 
pend in  each  case  upon  the  couft. 

If  an  accurately  definable  character  of  the  word  "obscene" 
is  not  implied  in  all  our  laws  penalizing  the  "indecent,"  then 
they  do  not  prescribe  a  uniform  rule  of  conduct,  and  are  there- 

33 


{ 


i 


-s^rr. 


diced  bv^;  f         .  "  "'^  assumption,  is  further  evi- 

denced by  the  fact  that  no  legislative  dehnition  or  test  is  fur- 
nished, and  courts  assert  that  none  is  necessary,  sin  e  these 
are  n.atters  ot  common  knowledge.   ^96  i\.  Y    ioT 

lliat  assertion.  1  believe,  is  based  upon  lack  of  psychologic 
•uelhgence.  and  it  is  here  intended  to  ouUine  an  argumem^o 
deinonstrate  us  falsity.  Be  it  remembered,  that  thisl"- 
tio^i  n  the  science  of  psychology.    It  is  not  a  question  of  eSii" 

mat,  r'f ""    '^"'"""^  expediency,  but  ever  and  alway    a' 
patter  of  science,  which  must  underiie  all  these.    If  my  con 
ention  is  correct,  then  present  obscenity  laws  are  a  ifuZ 
for  want  of  a  definition  of  the  crime  and  tnr  .L  ^' 

of  that  wh.vk  »i,      .  crime,  and  tor  the  non-existence 

rl  ,  '  *'**"'^  ^^''^  '°  P""'sh.     I  will  prove  that 

obscenity  IS  ever  and  always  the  exclusive  property  L  con 
tribution  of  the  reading  mind.  ^ 

Nothing  will  be  herein  contended  for.  which  will  preclude 

laws  aeamst  ^mn  "''.f?/'""^  P^^'P'^  ^hink  justify  our  present 
laws  against    impure    literature.    To  illustrate :    Exceot  when 
done  by  parents,  guardians,  et  al,  it  could  be  made  a  crime 
o  sell,  or  transmit,  etc..  to  any  person  under  the  age  of  co" 
sent   any  book  containing  such  word  as  "sex."  or  Sy  p  c^e 

S^etimrwoTir^^r  k'"  ^"'^'^  ^  •^^'  ^"  ^^  -"^•^■-  o 
tne  crime  would  easily  be  prescribed  with  that  exactness 

which  leaves  no  r<^m  for  such  objections  as  I  a^  now  S 
to  make  against  the  existing  statutes.  ^   ^ 

Such  a  law  would  not.  and  should  not.  assume  to  decide 
nor  authorize  a  iurv  to  deciHe  «,h,»  •  j       .^^    .       ^^^'^^^^y 

It  would  «m.i  !       '         *  '*  ^°°^  °''  ''^d  literature. 

It  would  simply  assume  the  incompetence  of  children  to  judge 
for  themselves  what  information  they  desired,  and  at  the  sarfe 
time  accord  that  rightful  liberty  to  adults 

In  1661,  the  learned  Sir  Matthew  Hale,  "a  person  than 
whom  no  one  was  more  backward  to  condemn  a  wkch  wu" 

angels  [as  witches],  it  is  without  question."     Then  he  made 

With    the    same    assurance,    and    no    less    ignorance    of 
scence-as  we  hope  to  show-our  courts  now  Zn.  thit  the 

34 


the  range  01  ^^^^^^  ^j  ^^jt,  in 

who  uses  the  mails     .      •      •     ""!'  ^     and  chas- 

lascivious."  (U.  S.  vs.  Rosen  161  U   S.  4a.) 

This  appeal,  to  the  coiisensus  °^  J^  ^./^^Son 
ened  age,"  has  been  -f  '«  suppor^^^o  -er^  P  ^^^^ 
that  has  ever  paralyzed  the  human  intellect,  t  w 
reassuring  if  judges  had  S^^-V^rsle  p'^^cdved  qSties 
obscenity,  in  terms  of  the  f  ^<=^7' ^^ne  S  Y  'nd  with 
of  literature,  6v  v,Uch  test  alone je  ^^"''i  """"^fting  line 
unavoidable  uniformity,  draw  the  ^»'"^' ^'^^  J  ""^e  fn  liter- 

of  partition  between  -'^^Ves  tl^sV  Unlil  ^^  yCniTh  such 
ature,  no  matter  who  applies  the  t^st.    Until  t    y  ^^ 

ta  to  OTttol  o«,  .o.d.ct,  no,  ttat  of  or  court,  o,  ,"r». 

tions.  or  questions  any  other  sex  ^"P™     '       ;^„    ^^ch  as 

cowed  into  silence  by  -^-j^t/..^^ ^T^^^^^^^  ' 

"impure  '••immoral      ;•""*  ™  „„developed  minds. 

Such  epithets  may  be  very  satisiymg 

.ssue.    Again  we  say:  This  is  a  matter 

quires  fact  and  argument,  and  cannot  be  disposed       oy  q 

tion-beeeinc:  villification. 

The  Lrts  are  more  refined,  though  not  more  argumenta- 
The  courts  are  mo  denouncing  dissenters. 

^h^MirSa  s*^^^^^^  -h  matters  are  said  to 

Tonly  dure  to  the  over-prudish,  it  ^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
■      miliarity  with  obscenity  blunts  the  ;'^f^''^:f'^^^r^g^n 
taste  and  perverts  the  judgment."  (45  Fed.  J^P'  ^^^O  J^f 

—or  i?i:  ;SL  for  any  one  to  prescribe  a  gener.  r^^^^^ 

of  judgment,  by  which  to  ^^^^^.^^^^^J^;  of  "good 
of  the  criminal  •'blunted  sensibihties.    or  the  umit  01    g 

35 


(    r 


"obscene,"  and  acqS  slh  '  hT'".  T'^  '"  ''^"^^^  '"  *e 
could  discuss  n^atJersof  sex  as  ^  ""?"''""  ^'^^^  ^''^^ 
«ver  or  digestion -w,>»,  ,k    ,  "^  """^"^^  matters  of 

ious  feelinif  wWT  t  "  !  ^°'"J  ''''''''"  ^^^  «"  'asciv- 
eased  sex-LsitK^e„e     TT        .T''  ^'"'^^^^'^  *«  ^^^  dis- 

"obscene"  literature  willTeb  to  "  P''^^^^'"^'  -"^  so-called 
sensibilities,"  would  it  not  t  K  .  "^  ^^°"*  '"^"^  """"t^^ 

tions  ?  It  eqSe  ar  "1  '  Z  *°  "^~"'^^^  ^"^^^  P"Wica- 
Platitudes,  to  S  er^rXh"  i''''  '"'"'"  *''^"  "^■^"°«^" 
titude  toward  thesTrbilct  '/  f'  T/'  ''^^'^''y-'^'nded  at- 
not  the  brute  force  of  blLf^  ^  '"^  ^°'  '"'^"^'fi'^  '^^^^^^h, 
Assumin!  T  <Jogmat,sm  and  cruel  authority. 

fest  such  extraordinj;  "g^o  'a^crorsr  1  "'T''*^'  '"^"'- 
no  man  who  is  accused  cfn  rL"  k,  ^"^'  P^y«^'""o?y.  that 
vfction  by  denying  Te  craX  'T  h'  kT*  '^ "^^^  "=°"- 
verdict  of  "g„ilty»  is  not   «  «      ^^-     ^'  ""^^iling 

the  wisdom  ?f  the  nroserlt      'r^''^«^^  themselves,  due  to 

nature  of  the  offense    Tl-t?  ""'''''""'^  ""^  .'ndefinable 

If  in  .1      ri  ''''°"  *''^'*''^^  «''0"t  this. 

fuses 't:  sSif  «';,HTurbT  '^  "■*"''"^*""'-  ^  p--  - 

the  demands  of  morlLbbT      ."'?'*''*"'"   ''^  '■"*^"^^*-"  *« 

socialed  with  .„  Infinfc  „riT"f  °' •^?™'"  "^fi""  >«- 

36 


many  ways,  and  among  these,  by  the  resultant  fact  that  ob- 
scenity" never  has  been,  nor  can  be,  described  in  terms  of  any 
universally  applicable  test  consisting  of  the  sense-perceived 
qualities  of  a  book  or  picture,  but  ever  and  always  it  must  be  I 
described  as  subjective,  that  is,  in  terms  of  the  author's  sus-  ^ 
pected  motive,  or  in  terms  of  dreaded  emotions  of  speculative 
existence  in  the  mind  of  some  supposititious  reader. 

With   some   knowledge   of   the   psychologic   processes   in- 
volved in  acquiring  a  general  conception,  it  is  easy  to  see  how 
courts,  as  well  as  the  more  ignorant  populace,  quite  naturally 
fell   into  the  error  of  supposing  that  the  "obscene*'   was  a 
quality  of  literature,  and  not-as  in  fact  it  is-only  a  contnbii^ 
tion  of  the  reading  mind.    By  critical  analysis,  we  can  exhibit 
separatelv  the  constituent  elements  of  other  conceptions,  as 
well  as  of  our  general  idea  of  the  "obscene."    By  a  companson. 
we  will  discover  that  their  common  element  of  unification  mav 
be  either  subjective  or  objective.    Futhermore,  it  will  appear 
that  in  the  general  idea,  symbolized  by  the  word  "obscene^, 
there  is  onlv  a  subiective  element  of  unification,  which  is  com- 
mon to  all  obscenity,  and  that  herein  it  differs  from  most  gen- 
eral terms.     Tn  the  failure  to  recognize  this  fundamental  un- 
likeness  between  different  kinds  of  general  ideas,  we  wdl  dis- 
cover  the  source  of  the  popular  error,  that  "obscenitv     is  a 
definite  and  definable,  objective  quality  of  literature  and  art. 

A  general  idea  (conception)  is  technically  defined  as  the 
cognition  of  a  universal,  as  distinguished  from  the  particulars 
which  it  unifies."  Let  us  fix  the  meaning  of  this  more  clearly 
and  firmly  in  our  minds  by  an  illustration. 

A  particular  triangle  may  be  right-angled,  equilateral  or 
irregular,  and  in  the  varieties  of  these  kinds  of  triangles,  there 
are  an  infinite  number  of  shapes,  varying  according  to  the 
infinite  differences  in  the  length  of  their  boundary  lines,  meet- 
ing in  an  infinite  number  of  different  angles. 

What  is  the  operation  when  we  classify  all  this  infinite  va- 
riety of  figures  under  the  single  generalization  "triangle"? 
Simply  this :  In  antithesis  to  those  qualities  in  which  triangles 
may  be  unlike,  we  contrast  the  qualities  which  are  common  to 
all  triangles,  and  as  to  which  all  must  be  alike. 

These  elements  of  identity,  common  to  an  infinite  variety 
of  triangles,  constitute  the  very  essence  and  conclusive  tests 
by  which  we  determine  whether  or  not  a  given  figure  is  to  be 
classified  as  a  triangle.  Some  of  these  essential,  constituent, 
unifying  elements  of  every  triangle  are  now  matters  of  com- 

37 


f 


r 

\ 


mon  knowledge,  while  others  become  known  only  as  we  de- 
velop in  the  science  of  mathematics.  A  few  of  these  essentials 
may  be  re-stated.  A  plain  triangle  must  enclose  a  space  with 
three  straight  lines ;  the  sum  of  the  interior  angles  formed  by 
the  meeting  of  these  lines  always  equals  two  right  angles ;  as 
one  side  of  a  plain  triangle  is  to  another,  so  is  the  sine  of  the 
angle  opposite  to  the  former  to  the  sine  of  the  angle  opposite 
to  the  latter. 

These,  and  half  a  dozen  other  mathematical  properties  be- 
long to  every  particular  triangle ;  and  these  characteristics,  al- 
ways alike  in  all  triangles,  are  abstracted  from  all  the  infinite 
different  shapes  in  which  particular  triangles  appear ;  and  these 
essential  and  constant  qualities,  thus  abstracted,  are  general- 
ized as  one  universal  conception,  which  we  symbolize  by  the 
word  "triangle.'* 

Here  it  is  important  to  bear  in  mind  that  these  universal,  con- 
stituent, unifying  elements,  common  to  all  triangles,  are  neither 
contributions,  nor  creations,  of  the  human  mind.  They  are 
the  relations  of  the  separate  parts  of  every  triangle  to  its  other 
parts,  and  to  the  whole,  and  these  uniform  relations  inhere  in 
the  very  nature  of  things,  and  are  of  the  very  essence  of  the 
thing  we  call  a  "triangle." 

As  the  force  of  gravity  existed  before  humans  had  any 
knowledge  of  the  law  of  its  operation,  so  the  unifying  elements 
of  all  triangles  exist  in  the  nature  of  thiniefs,  prior  to  and  in- 
dependent of  our  knowledge  of  them.    It  is  because  these  uni- 
fying elements,  which  we  thus  generalize  under  the  word  "tri- 
angle," are  facts  of  objective  nature,  existing  wholly  outside 
of  ourselves,  and  independent  of  us,  or  of  our  knowledge  of 
their  existence,  that  the  word  "triangle*'  is  accurately  definable. 
We  will  now  analyze  that  other  general  term,  "obscene," 
reducing  it  to  its  constituent,  unchanging  elements,  and  we 
will  see  that,  in  the  nature  of  things,  it  must  remain  incapable 
of  accurate,  uniform  definition,  because,  unlike  the  case  of  a 
triangle,  the  universal  element  in  all  that  is  "obscene"  has  no 
existence TrTthe  nature  of  things  objectjve.    It  will  then  appear 
TEaTlor  ■  the  want  of  observhig  this  difference  between  these 
t  two  classes  of  general  terms,  judges  and  the  mob  alike,  errpne- 
/ously  assumed  that  the  "obscene,"  like  the  "triangle,"  must 
^   have^tr~e5fistence  outside  their  own   emotions,   and,   conse- 
\  quently,  they  were" compelled  to  indulge  in  that  mystifying  ver- 
biage, which  the  courts  miscall  "tests"  of  "obscenity." 

38 


\ 


I 


First  of  all,  we  must  discover  what  is  the  universal  constit- 

S  a";  r^  !  '  "'"'"°"  '°  ^"  °*'^^^"'^y-    Let  us  begin 

with  a  ht tie  introspection,  and  the  phenomena  of  our  every- 
day hte.    We  readily  discover  that  what  we  deemed  "indecenr 

Lr  Tm    '"'*^'"'  ^^  °°'  '°  considered  at  the  age  of  five, 
^^d^probably  is  viewed  m  still  another  aspect  at  L  age  o; 

We  look  about  us.  and  learn  that  an  adolescent  maid  has 
her  modesty  shocked  by  that  which  will  make  no  unpkasaS 

ZrTo^k"'' ■  '"  '""  ""^^™"^'  ^^^  'y  '»>-'  Which  wouTd 

shikmt^u??'""";  '"'  '"'^"'  ^^'*°'  '^^^  "^y — *- 

shocking  to  us  u  viewed  in  company,  and  not  in  tlie  least  oiien- 

rve  when  privately  viewed;  and  that,  among  different  pers's 

there  is  no  uniformity  in  the  added  conditions  which  change 

such  scenes  to  shocking  ones.  tnange 

We  see  the  plain  countyman  shocked  by  the  decollete  gowns 

shocked   mto   msensib.hty   if,   especially   in   the   presence   of 

make  no  shocking  impressions  upon  her  rustic  critic.  The 
peasant  woman  is  most  shocked  by  the  "indecency"  of  tiie  so- 
ciety woman's  bare  neck  and  shoulders,  and  the  society  „ 
.s  shocked  most  by  the  peasant  woman's  exhibition  oTTaS 
feet  and  ankles,  at  least  if  ti.ey  were  brought  into  ^e  d  y 
worn^s  parlor.  We  see  that  women,  when  ailment  sugge 2 
bv  IZT'T'""-  '■'"''"^  ""'^'■^°  ^"  ""«'"'ted  examiStion 
LL  dLu^'"'"";/'"^  "•^'^  ''^^  --«  -versed,  much 
Snot  f      "^  '^  ^  experienced  in  securing  submission. 

This  not  because  men  are  more  modest  than  women    but  be- 

TZ:tmr:l  -"^^^-  -^  ^^--on  have  made^t^ 

we  lzi7r.,f':!!z  ttm "  r"'^^"^'  •^-^"'^^^  ^'•^^•^ 

xiucr  me  general  term  obscene/'  as  its  constituent 
unifying  elements  are  not  inherent  in  the  nature  and  rdatTons 
of  things  viewed,  as  is  the  case  with  the  triangle.  Taking  tWs 
as  our  cue,  we  may  follow  the  lead  into  the  fealm  of  hiftori 
ethnology,  sexual  psychology  and  jurisprudence.  By  iES 
tive  facts,  drawn  from  each  of  these  sources,  it  can  be  shown  ^ 
to  a  demonstration  th,at_theword::obscene"  has  nTone  sS  ( 
universal.  constituentlk^iiiiirhr^edW-e'nature  ^     ^ 

Not  even  the  sexual  element  is  common  to  all  modesty 
shame  or  indecency.  A  study  of  ethnology  and  psXS 
shows  that  emotions  of  disgust,  and  the  concept  of'InttS 

39 


n 


or  obscenity,  are  often  associated  with  phenomena  having  no 
natural  connection  with  sex,  and  often  in  many  people  are 
not  at  all  aroused  by  any  phase  of  healthy  sexual  manifesta- 
tion ;  and  in  still  others  it  is  aroused  by  some  sensual  associa- 
tions and  not  by  others;  and  these,  again,  vary  with  the  indi- 
vidual according  to  his  age,  education  and  the  degree  of  his 
sexual  hyperaestheticism. 

Everywhere  we  hnd  those  who  are  abnormally  sex-sensitive 
and  who,  on  that  account,  have  sensual  thoughts  and  feelings 
aroused  by  innumerable  images,  which  would  not  thus  affect 
the  more  healthy.  These  diseased  ones  soon  develop  very 
many  unusual  associations  with,  and  stimulants  for,  their  sex- 
thought.  If  they  do  not  consider  this  a  lamentable  condition, 
they  are  apt  to  become  boastful  of  their  sensualism.  If,  on 
the  other  hand,  they  esteem  lascivious  thoughts  and  images  as 
a  mark  of  depravity,  they  seek  to  conceal  their  own  shame  by 
denouncing  all  those  things  which  stimulate  sensuality  in 
themselves,  and  they  naturally  and  erroneously  believe  that 
it  must  have  the  same  effect  upon  all  others.  It  is  essential  to 
their  purpose  of  self-protection,  that  they  make  others  believe 
that  the  foulness  is  in  the  offending  book  or  picture,  and  not 
in  their  own  thought.  As  a  consequence,  comes  that  persist- 
ence of  reiteration,  from  which  has  developed  the  "obscene" 
superstition,  and  a  rejection — even  by  Christians — of  those 
scientific  truths  in  the  Bible,  to  the  effect  that  "unto  the  pure 
all  things  are  pure,"  etc.  We  need  to  get  back  to  these,  and 
reassert  the  old  truth,  that  all  genuine  prudery  is  prurient. 

The  influence  of  education  in  shaping  our  notions  of  mod- 
esty is  quite  as  apparent  as  is  that  of  sexual  hyperaesthesia. 
We  see  it,  not  only  in  the  different  effect  produced  upon  differ- 
ent minds  by  the  same  stimulants,  but  also  by  the  different 
effect  produced  upon  the  same  person  by  different  objects 
bearing  precisely  the  same  relation  to  the  individual.  When 
an  object,  even  unrelated  to  sex,  has  acquired  a  sexual  associ- 
ation in  our  minds,  its  sight  will  suggest  the  affiliated  idea, 
and  will  fail  to  produce  a  like  sensual  thought  in  the  minds  of 
those  not  obsessed  by  the  same  association. 

Thus,  books  on  sexual  psychology  tell  us  of  men  who  are 
so  "pure**  that  they  have  their  modesty  shocked  by  seeing  a 
woman's  shoe  displayed  in  a  shop  window ;  others  have  their 
modesty  offended  by  hearing  married  people  speak  of  retiring 
for  the  night;  some  have  their  modesty  shocked  by  seeing  in 
the  store  windows  a  dummy  wearing  a  corset;  some  are 

40 


f 


shocked  by  seeing  underwear,  or  hearing  it  spoken  of  other- 
wise than  as  -unmentionables;"  still  others  cannot  tear  I 
ment.on  of   -legs  "  and  even  speak  of  the  "limbs-  of  a  p  a^o 

ra^tLi^s t:r  r.""  --  ^^-^^  -  -  ^^^ 

S.nce  the  statutes  do  not  define  "obscene,"  no  one  accused 
tmder  the.n  has  the  least  protection  agamst  a  judge  "Tr! 
attl.cted  w,th  such  diseased  sex-sensitiveness,  or  agfLst  mZ 
healthy  ones  who,  for  want  of  information  ;bout leLual  psy 
chology,  blmdly  accept  the  vehement  dictates  of  the  LxuZ 
or'a"."  o    r,  "  '*'"'"'^  °'  P""*^-     But  whether  T  juf  e 

eient    he    s  If    '?"'  '"  I.'*''"'"'^'  '"  ^^^  ^"^  every  such 
enSni  and      \  ''^  '^'  '^"^^  °^  ^  ^^"^^^'   '^w,  but 

e'ac    d\v  him  .Tr/  T'"'''''  ''-  ^"'^  ^-'^  '<'«'  then 
Wftat.  hat  law  shall  be  in  any  case  depends  on  the  experiences 
education  and  the  degree  of  sex-sensitiveness  of  the  c^u      and 
not  upon  any  statutory  specification  of  what  is  criminal    ' 

ence  r;j  1'^"'  T"''  P'"*^"^'  "^  '''  '"^^  '^"^^  differ- 
ence as  to  what  .s  offensive  to  their  modesty,  depending  al- 
together upon  whether  or  not  they  are  accustomed  to  Tept 
ticular  thmg.  That  which,  through  frequent  repetition  Zs 
become  common-place  no  longer  shocks  us,  but  that  whidf 
hough  ,t  has  precisely  the  same  relation  to  us  or  to  thr.et 

Some  who  are  passive  if  you  speak  of  a  cow  are  vet 
shocked  ,f  you  call  a  bull  by  name.  In  the  human  sLies  Z 
may  properly  use  the  terms  "men"  and  "women."  as  drff;rr 
t.at.ng  between  the  sexes,  but  if  you  call  a  f  ma  e  ^  t 
name,  you  g,ve  offense  to  many.    So,  likewise,  you  may  sLak 

ht^eTname     wt°,r''  ""''  '''''''  ''  ^^  ^''^^  ^^e  mat 

7^,L2T^    ?  ^"^'"^^y-  ''^  ^  ?«WinR  to  very  many,  but  of  a 
ZTfU-  T""!"  '^''"'P^^^tively  few.  without  giving  offense     No 
one  thmks  that  nudity  is  immodest,  either  in  nafure  or  In  art 
except  the  nudity  of  the  human  animal ;  and  a  few  a«  ^ot' 
opposed  to  human  nudity  in  art.  but  find  it  immode    T„  nL" 

bute?LoS  ""'  "J'f"^"*  "'  '"^^  U"'*^'^  States  Si 
butes  information  on  the  best  methods  for  breeding  domestic 

culr^frr  thr,t  ^'r  t  ^■'"  ^''^  ^''^'"^*^  ^^^  higher  S! 

culture,  for  the  sake  of  a  better  humanity. 

41 


-^  — 


)> 


Likewise,  Prof.  Andrew  D.  White  tells  us  that:  "At  a 
time  when  eminent  prelates  of  the  Older  Church  were  eulo- 
gizing debauched  princes  like  Louis  XV.,  and  using  the  un- 
speakably obscene  casuistry  of  the  Jesuit  Sanchez,  in  the  edu- 
cation of  the  priesthood  as  to  the  relations  of  men  and  women, 
the  modesty  of  the  church  authorities  was  so  shocked  by  Lin- 
naeus' proofs  of  a  sexual  system  in  plants,  that  for  many  years 
his  writings  were  prohibited  in  the  Papal  States,  and  in  various 
parts  of  Europe  where  clerical  authority  was  strong  enough 
to  resist  the  new  scientific  current." 

Now,  education  has  so  reversed  public  sentiment,  that  one 
may  write  with  impunity  about  the  sexuality  of  plants,  which 
was  formerly  denounced  as  a  "Satanic  abyss :"  but  men  have 
been,  and  would  be,  sent  to  jail  for  circulating  in  the  English 
language  the  books  of  Sanchez  and  others  like  him.  (Reg.  vs. 
Hicklin,  Law  Rep.  3  Queen's  Bench,  360.) 

(^t  thus  appears  that  the  only  unifying  element  generalized 
in  the  word  "obscene,"  (that  is,  the  only  thing  common  to 
every  conception  of  obscenity  and  indecency),  is  subjective,  is 
an  affiliated  emotion  of  disapproval.  This  emotion  under  vary- 
t\  ing  circumstances  of  temperament  and  education  in  different 
/  persons,  and  in  the  same  person  in  different  stages  of  develop- 
'  ment  is  aroused  by  entirely  different  stimuli,  and  so  has 
become  associated  with  an  infinite  variety  of  ever-changing 
objectives,  with  not  even  one  common  characteristic  in  ob- 

V  jective  nature ;  that  is,  in  literature  or  art.")^ 

?  This,  then,  is  a  demonstration  that  obscenity  exists  only  m 
)the  minds  and  emotions  of  those  who  believe  in  it.  and  is  not 
/a  quality  of  a  book  or  picture.    We  must  next  outline  the  legal 

V  consequences  of  this  fact  of  science.  Since,  then,  the  general 
conception  "obscene"  is  devoid  of  every  objective  element  of 
unification;  and  since  the  subjective  element,  the  associated 
emotion,  is  indefinable  from  its  very  nature,  and  inconstant  as 
to  the  character  of  the  stimulus  capable  of  arousing  it,  and 
variable  and  immeasurable  as  to  its  relative  degrees  of  inten- 
sity, it  follows  that  the  "obscene"  is  incapable  of  accurate  defi- 
nition or  general  test,  adequate  to  securing  uniformity  of  re- 
sult, in  its  application  by  every  person,  to  each  book  of  doubt- 
ful "purity."  ^  ^  ^,, 

Since  few  men  have  identical  experiences,  and  fewer  still 
evolve  to  an  agreement  in  their  ideational  and  emotional  asso- 
ciations, it  must  follow  that  practically  none  have  the  same 
standards  for  judging  the  "obscene,"  even  when  their  conclu- 

42 


V. 


{ 


L. 


4- 


I 


sions  agree.  The  word  "obscene,"  like  such  words  as  delicate, 
ugly,  lovable,  hateful,  etc.,  is  an  abstraction  not  based  upon  a 
reasoned,  nor  sense-perceived,  likeness  between  objectives,  but 
the  selection  or  classification  under  it  is  made,  on  the  basis  of 
similarity  in  the  emotions  aroused,  by  an  infinite  variety  of 
images ;  and  every  classification  thus  made,  in  turn,  depends  in 
each  person  upon  his  prior  experience,  education  and  the  de- 
gree of  neuro-sexual  or  psycho-sexual  health.  Because  it  is  a 
matter  wholly  of  emotions,  it  has  come  to  be  that  "men  think 
they  know  because  they  feel,  and  are  firmly  convinced  because 
strongly  agitated." 

/teeing  so  essentially  and  inextricably  involved  with  human 
emotions,  no  man  can  frame  such  a  definition  of  the  word 
"obscene"  either  in  terms  of  the  qualities  of  a  book,  nor  such 
that,  by  it  alone,  any  judgment  whatever  is  possible,  much  less 
is  it  possible  that  by  any  such  alleged  "test"  e^ery.  other  man 
must  reach  the  same  conclusion  about  the  obscenity  of  every 
conceivable  book.^^Therefore,  the  so-called  judicial  "tests"  of 
obscenity  are  not  standards  of  judgment,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
by  every  such  "test"  the  rule  of  decision  is  itself  uncertain, 
and  in  terms  invokes  the  varying  experiences  of  the  testors 
within  the  foggy  realm  of  problematical  speculation  about 
psychic  tendencies,  without  the  help  of  which  the  "test"  itself 
is  meaningless  and  useless.  It  follows  that  to  each  person  the 
"test,"  which  supposedly  is  a  general  standard  of  judgment, 
unavoidably  becomes  a  personal  and  particular  standard,  dif- 
fering in  all  persons  according  to  those  vanning  experiences 
which  they  read  into  the  judicial  "test."  It  is  this  which  makes 
uncertain,  and,  therefore,  all  the  more  objectionable,  all  the 
present  laws  against  obscenity. 

This  general  argument  can  be  given  particular  verification 
by  a  study  of  history,  ethnology,  general  and  sexual  psychol- 
ogy, and  judicial  decisions,  until  we  have  produced  demonstra- 
tion amounting  to  a  mathematical  certainty  that  neither  nature, 
common  knowledge,  science,  nor  the  statute,  has  furnished,  or 
can  furnish,  any  tests  by  which  to  measure  relative  degrees  of 
obscenity,  or  to  fix  the  freezing  point  of  modesty,  as  with  a 
thermometer  we  measure  relative  heat  and  cold,  or  by  chemical 
tests  we  determine  the  presence  of  arsenic. 

If,  then,  neither  nature,  common  knowledge,  nor  the  stat- 
ute, furnish  so  exact  a  definition  of  the  "obscene"  that,  no 
matter  by  whom  applied,  it  must  uniformly  and  unerringly  fix 
the  same  line  of  partition  from  that  which  is  not  "obscene," 

43 


and  if  scientific  research  has  furnished  no  tests  by  which,  with- 
out speculative  uncertainty,  we  may  with  mathematical  accur- 
acy classify  every  book  or  picture  which,  to  the  less  enlight- 
ened, would  seem  to  be  on  the  borderland  of  doubtful  "purity," 
then,  it  must  follow  that  no  general  rule  exists,  applicable  to 
all  cases,  and  by  which  we  can  or  do  judge  what  is  a  violation 
of  the  statutory  prohibition. 

The  so-called  "tests,"  by  which  the  courts  direct  juries  to 
determine  whether  books  belong  to  the  "indecent  and  obscene/* 
are  a  terrible  indictment  of  the  legislative  and  judicial  intelli- 
gence, which  could  create  and  punish  a  mental  crime,  and  de- 
termine guilt  under  it  by  such  absurd  **tests."  Bereft  of  the 
magical,  mystifying  phrasing  of  moral  sentimentalizing,  the 
guilt  of  this  psychological  crime  is  always  literally  determined 
by  a  constructive  (never  actual),  psychological  (never  mate- 
rial or  demonstrable),  potential  and  speculative  (never  a  real- 
ized) injury,  predicated  upon  the  jury's  g:uess,  as  to  the  prob- 
lematical "immoral  tendency"  (not  mdicating  the  rules  of 
which  school  of  religious  or  scientific  morality  are  to  be  ap- 
plied) of  an  unpopular  idea,  upon  a  mere  hypothetical  (never 
a  real)  person.  Ko!  This  is  not  a  witticism,  but  a  literal 
verity,  a  saddening:,  lamentable,  appalling  indictment  of  our 
criminal  code  as  judicially  interpreted. 

Under  a  law  of  such  vagueness  and  mvstical  uncertainty, 
be  it  said  to  our  everlasting  disjEfrace.  several  thousand  per- 
sons in  America  have  alreadv  been  deprived  of  libertv  and 
propertv:  unnumbered  others  have  been  cowed  into  silence, 
who  should  have  been  encouraeed  to  speak:  and  almost  a 
score  have  been  driven  to  suicide.  ^ 

Tf.  then,  it  is  true  that  a  book  or  a  picture  can  only  be  clas- 
sified as  to  its  obscenitv.  not  nrimarilv  accordine  to  the  sub- 
stance of  that  which  it  reveals,  but  according  to  the  emotions 
therebv  aroused,  then,  three  conclusions  irresistiblv  follow:' 
First,  there  is  no  general  test  of  obscenitv  capable  of  produc- 
ing accuracv  and  uniformitv  of  result  in  classifvine  books: 
second,  for  the  want  of  such  t'^^t.  there  never  can  be  a  convic- 
tion accordine  to  the  letter  of  a  uniform  law.  but  everv  verdict 
expresses  onlv  a  legislative  discretion,  wron^fullv  exercised 
after  the  act  to  he  ntmished.  and  according  to  the  peculiar 
and  personal  experiences  of  each  iudee  or  iuror:  and  it  is. 
therefore,  but  the  enactment  of  a  particular  law.  for  the  par- 
ticular defendant  then  beine  tried,  and  applvine  to  no 
one  else.     From  these  two  follows  the  third,  namely:  That 

44 


■^     4 


-      <l 


I 


%        ♦ 


i 


no  man,  by  reading  the  statute,  can  tell  whether  a  particular 
book  is  criminal  or  not,  because  the  criminality  does  not  de- 
pend upon  the  statute,  but  upon  the  incompetent  jurors'  specu- 
lative opinion  about  the  psychological  tendency  of  the  book. 

It  is  inevitable,  from  such  an  indefinable  statute,  that  the 
determination  of  what  is  -obscene"  should  become  a  matter  of 
juridical  arbitrariness,  even  though  a  clouded  vision— as  to  the 
difference  between  judicial  interpretation  and  judicial  legisla- 
tion—should induce  all  courts  to  deny  the  fact.  However, 
some  judges,  with  the  naivette  which  evidences  their  conscious- 
lessness  of  what  they  do,  quite  freely  admit  that  it  is  not  a 
matter  of  law,  but  a  matter  of  discretion,  which  determines 
the  character  of  a  book,  and,  therefore,  the  *'guilt"  of  its 
vendor. 

One  judge,  after  fumbling  with  those  definitions  of  "ob- 
scene"—which  define  nothing— continued  his  instructions  to 
the  jury  as  follows :  "These  are  as  precise  definitions  as  I  can 
give.  The  case  is  one  which  addresses  itself  largely  to  your 
good  judgment,  common  sense,"  etc.  (38  Fed.  R.  733.) 

If  "obscenity"  means  definable  qualities  of  a  book,  how  can 
guilt  under  this  criminal  law  be  made  a  matter  of  "good  judg- 
ment," or  a  juror's  conception  of  what  is  "common  sense" 
upon  the  subject?  The  "good  judgment"  is  for  the  legislature 
to  exercise  in  passing  the  law,  not  for  the  jurors  in  determin- 
ing its  meaning,  or  its  application. 

In  other  cases  jurors  are  instructed  that:  "If,  in  their 
judgment,  the  book  was  fit  and  proper  for  publication,  and 
such  as  should  go  into  their  families,  and  be  handed  to  their 
sons  and  daughters,  and  placed  in  boarding-schools,  for  the 
beneficial  information  of  the  young  and  others,  then,  it  was 
their  duty  to  acquit  the  defendant.  .  .  .  The  jury  were 
instructed  that  it  did  not  matter  whether  the  things  published 
in  the  book  were  true  and  in  conformity  with  nature  or  not." 
(Com.  V.  Landis  8  Phila.  453,  and  other  cases.) 

What  is  here  plainly  expressed  is  in  every  other  case  ne- 
cessarily implied,  because  the  statute  has  not  created  any  gen- 
eral rule  by  which  we  can  determine  what  is  against  the  law. 
Everv  conviction  is  securable  onlv  bv  an  exercise  on  the  part 
of  the  jury  of  a  legislative  discretion,  and  not  according  to 
standards  created  by  any  general  rule  by  which  we  can  determ- 
ine in  advance  what  is  and  what  is  not  prohibited,  which 
can  result  in  the  suppression  even  of  truth,  and  that  discretion 
is  personal  to  the  jurors,  and  always  this  particular  law  of  the 

45 


jury  is  enacted  ex  post  facto  at  the  trial  of  the  accused,  and 
not  before,  and  is  not,  and  cannot  be,  binding  upon  any  other 
jurors.  Since  the  legislative  power  cannot  be  delegated  to  a 
jury,  and  cannot  be  exercised  ex  post  facto,  even  by  the  legis- 
lature itself,  it  follows  that  our  present  laws  against  'ob- 
scenity'' must  be  a  nullity,  and  will  yet  be  so  declared,  when 
this  argument,  properly  elaborated,  shall  be  presented  to  an 

intelligent  court. 

Nearly  two  hundred  years  ago  Montesquieu,  in  viewing  the 
tyrannies  about  him,  wrote  this:  ''In  despotic  governments 
there  are  no  laws,  the  judge  himself  is  his  own  rule.  .  .  . 
In  republics,  the  very  nature  of  the  constitution  requires  the 
judges  to  follow  the  letter  of  the  law.  Otherwise  the  law  might 
be  explained  to  the  prejudice  of  every  citizen  in  cases  where 
their  honor,  property  or  life  is  concerned."     (Spirit  of  Laws, 

p.  8l.) 

Within  the  domain  of  literature,  we  have  unintentionally, 
through  psychologic  ignorance,  re-established  that  irre- 
sponsible, arbitrary  absolutism  of  the  judiciary,  which  it  took 
many  ages  of  painful  struggle  to  aboHsh.  Shall  it  remain  and 
be  extended,  or  will  we  throttle  this  new  despotism?  Of  jur- 
isprudence it  is  said :  "Its  value  depends  on  a  fixed  and  uni- 
form rule  of  action."  From  what  has  preceded,  it  follows  that 
the  statutes  here  in  question  are  uncertain  beyond  all  possibil- 
ity of  being  made  uniform  guides  for  our  conduct.  As  has 
been  shown,  this  uncertainty  never  arises  from  any  doubt  as 
to  the  contents  of  the  book  to  be  judged,  but  the  uncertainty 
always  arises  solely  from  the  indefinable  nature  of  that  which 
the  statute  attempts  to  penalize. 

It  follows  that  convictions  can  be  had  only  as  antipathy  or 
affection,  caprice  or  whim,  on  the  part  of  the  jurors,  dictates 
the  Result  of  their  deliberations.  For  each,  the  foundation  of 
his  judgment  of  guilt  is  his  personal  experience,  necessarily 
differing  from  the  experience  of  other  jurors,  who,  therefore, 
have  other  standards  of  judgment.  It  is  no  credit  to  the  intel- 
ligence of  the  bar,  that  these  matters  have  never  been  argued 
to  any  court.  When  adequately  presented  to  an  intelligent 
judged  with  psychologic  insight  and  an  open  mind,  all  present 
obscenity  legislation  will  disappear.  To  that  end,  such  a  judge 
will  do  his  plain  duty  by  applying  the  old  legal  maxim: 
"Where  the  law  is  uncertain  there  is  no  law." 

The  short  space  remaining  will  be  devoted  to  one  of  the 
many  illustrations,  which  in  this  class  of  cases  exhibit  the 

46 


colossal  stupidity  of  judicial  tribunals  in  "this  enlightened 
age.  Ihe  courts  of  America,  with  great  uniformity,  have 
followed  the  early  English  decisions  in  their  attempts  to  define 
obscenity  Here  is  the  judicial  formula:  'The  statute  uses 
Uie  word  -lewd,'  which  means,  having  a  tendency  to  excite 
lustful  thoughts.  ...  The  test  of  obscenity  is  this- 
whether  the  tendency  of  the  matter,  charged  as  obscene,  is  to 
deprave  and  corrupt  those  whose  minds  are  open  to  such  im- 
moral tnfiuences  and  into  whose  hands  a  publication  of  this  sort 
may  fall.'* 

Here,  we  can  take  space  to  analyze  but  one  of  the  numerous 
absurdities  involved  in  this  "test  of  obscenity.-  We  will  limit 
ourselves  to  the  phrase  "those  whose  minds  are  open  to  such 
immoral  influences."  This,  of  course,  includes  those  who, 
through  long  sex-suppression  or  disease,  are  afllicted  with  the 
most  acute  sexual-hyperaesthesia. 

Kraft-Ebing,  among  many  biographies  of  sexual  psycho- 
paths, gives  one  from  which  I  will  quote  only  a  single  para- 
graph.   The  patient  says :   "The  thought  of  slavery  had  some- 
thmg  exciting  in  it  for  me,  and  alike  whether  from  the  stand- 
pomt  of  master  or  servant.    That  one  man  could  possess,  sell 
or  whip  another,  caused  me  intense  excitement;  and  in  reading 
Uncle  Tom's  Cabin'  (which  I  read  at  about  the  beginning  of 
puberty)   I  had  an  --r~ct-n.-     ( Psychopathia  Sexualis,  p. 
105,  from  the  translation  of  the  7th  German  edition.) 
^   The  explanation  is  not  difficult.     The  stirring  scenes  de- 
picted in  "Uncle  Tom's  Cabin"  produced  a  very  intense  gen- 
eral excitement,  which,  by  its  irritation  of  the— possibly  ab- 
normally sensitive— sex-nerve-centers,  produced  sexual  excite- 
ment. 

A  jury  of  experts,  knowing  this  and  kindred  facts,  and  ap- 
plying the  test  of  obscenity  and  lewdness  prescribed  in  prac- 
tically all  the  English  and  American  decisions,  must  conclude 
that  "Uncle  Tom's  Cabin"  is  an  obscene  and  lewd  book,  within 
the  statute.  Only  a  jury  very  ignorant  of  the  effect  of  such  a 
book  on  "those  whose  minds  are  open  to  such  immoral  influ- 
ences," could  render  a  verdict  of  "not  guilty,"  if  trying  a  per- 
son charged  with  the  "indecent  crime"  of  sending  "Uncle 
Tom's  Cabin"  through  the  mails. 

But  the  courts  who  promulgated  such  stupidity  as  a  "test" 
of  obscenity,  tell  us  that  this  is  "within  the  range  of  ordinary 


47 


intelligence."     Yes,  so  extraordinary  that  my  vocabulary  is 
inadequate  for  the  occasion,  and,  therefore,  1  close. 

Theodore  Schroeder. 

Concurring  Opinions. 

'*  In  the  scientific  btudy  of  die  au&urd  judicial  "tests"  of 
obscenity  Theodore  Schroeder  of  New  York  City  takes  a  lead- 
ing step  in  advance,  and  no  doubt  great  good  will  come  from 
such  efforts. ' '  —  TA^  Medical  Herald^  for  Nov. ,  1^06. 

"It  is  impossible  to  define  what  is  an  immoral  or  obscene 
**publication.  To  say  that  it  necessarily  tends  to  corrupt  or 
"deprave  the  morals  of  readers,  supplies  no  definite  test." — 
Pater  son'  5  Liberty  of  the  Press  Speech  and  Public  Wot  ship  ^ 
p,  JO,     London,  1880. 

"We  have  been  taught  to  believe  that  it  was  the  greatest 
injustice  toward  the  common  people  of  old  Rome  when  the 
laws  they  were  commanded  to  obey,  under  Caligula,  were 
written  in  small  characters,  and  hung  upon  high  pillars,  thus 
more  eflfectually  to  ensnare  the  people.  How  much  ad- 
vantage may  we  justly  claim  over  the  old  Romans,  if  our 
criminal  laws  are  so  obscurely  written  that  one  cannot  tell 
when  he  is  violating  them?  If  the  rule  contended  for  here 
is  to  be  applied  to  the  defendant,  he  will  be  put  upon  trial  for 
an  act  which  he  could  not  by  perusing  the  law  have  ascer- 
tained was  an  oflFence.  My  own  sense  of  justice  revolts  at 
the  idea.  It  is  not  in  keeping  with  the  genius  of  our  insti- 
tutions, and  I  cannot  give  it  my  sanction.  *  *  *  The  in- 
dictment is  quashed,  and  the  defendant  is  discharged."  Judge 
Turner,  on  a  trial  for  depositing  an  obscene  sealed  letter  in 
the  Post  Office.  Dist.  Court  West  Dist  of  Texas.  U.  S.  vs. 
Comnursford  2^  Fed.  Rep.  90^, 

Mr.  Comstock  as  a  Psychologist. 

Mr.  Anthony  Comstock,  after  nearly  a  year's  meditation, 
made  the  following  very  luminous  and  highly  scientific  criticism 
of  my  foregoing  arguments  :  "It  is  all  right  from  the  mere 
standpoint  of  debate  and  discussion,  to  theorize  and  say  that 
there  is  no  such  thing  as  an  obscene  book  or  picture.  The  man 
who  says  it  simply  proclaims  himself  either  an  ignoramus,  or  is 
so  ethereal  that  there  is  no  suitable  place  on  earth  for  him.** — 
The  Light,  fanuary,  190J. 

If  Mr.  Comstock  himself  is  not  an  ignoramus,  and  is  intel- 
lectually honest,  why  doesn't  he  comply  with  repeated  requests 
and  opportunity,  by  pointing  out  the  errors  of  fact  or  logic, 
upon  which  I  base  my  conclusion  that  obscenity  exists  only  in 
the  viewing  mind, — in  his  mind — and  not  in  the  books  ? 

43 


LIBERTY  OF  DISCUSSION  DEFENDED  WITH  SPE- 
CIAL APPLICATION  TO  SEX-DISCUSSION. 

By  Theodore  Schroeder. 

Re-published  from  Liberal  Reviezv  for  Aug.  and  Sept.,  1906. 

The  desire  to  persecute,  even  for  mere  opinion's  sake,  seems 
to  be  an  eternal  inheritance  of  humans.  We  naturally  and  as  a 
matter  of  course  encourage  others  in  doing  and  believing  what- 
ever for  any  reason,  or  without  reason,  we  deem  proper.  Even 
though  we  have  a  mind  fairly  well  disciplined  in  the  duty  of 
toleration,  we  quite  naturally  discourage  others,  and  feel  a 
sense  of  oiitras^ed  pronrietv,  whenever  they  believe  and  act 
in  a  manner  radically  different  from  ourselves.  Our  resent- 
ment becomes  vehement  just  in  proportion  as  our  reason  is 
impotent,  and  our  nerves  diseasedly  sensitive.  That  is  why  it 
is  said  that  "Man  is  naturally,  instinctively  intolerant  and  a 
"persecutor." 

From  this  necessity  of  our  undisciplined  nature  comes  the 
stealthy  but  inevitable  recurrence  of  legalized  bigotry,  and  its 
rehabilitation  of  successive  inquisitions.  From  the  days  of 
pagan  antiquity  to  the  present  hour,  there  has  never  been  a 
time  or  country  wherein  mankind  could  claim  immunity  from 
all  persecution  for  intellectual  differences.  This  cruel  intoler- 
ance has  always  appealed  to  a  "sacred  and  patriotic  duty,"  and 
masked  behind  an  ignorantly  made  and  unwarranted  pretense 
of  "morality." 

"Persecution  has  not  been  the  outgrowth  of  any  one  age, 
"nationality  or  creed ;  it  has  been  the  ill-favored  progeny  of 
"all."  Thus,  under  the  disojiiise  of  new  names  and  new  preten- 
sions, again  and  again  we  punish  unpopular,  though  wholly 
self -regarding,  non-moral  conduct;  imprison  men  for  express- 
ing honest  intellectual  diflFerences ;  deny  the  duty  of  toleration : 


49 


destroy  a  proper  liberty  of  thought  and  conduct ;  and  always 
under  the  same  old  false  pretenses  of  ''morality,"  and     law 

"and  order." 

Whenever  our  natural  tendency  toward  mtolerance  is  re- 
inforced by  abnormally    intense    feelings,    such    as    diseased 
nerves  produce,  persecution  follows  quite  unavoidably,  because 
the  intensity  of  associated  emotions  is  transformed  into  a  con- 
viction of  inerrancy.   Such  a  victim  of  diseased  emotions,  even 
more  than  others,  "knows  because  he  feels,  and  is  firmly  con- 
^Vinced  because  strongly  agitated."    Unable  to  answer  logic- 
ally the  contention  of  his  friend,  he  ends  by  desiring  to  punish 
him  as  his  enemy.     Because  of  the  close  interdependence  of 
the  emotional  and  the  generative  mechanism,  it  is  probable 
that  unreasoned  moral  sentimentalizing  inducing  superstitious 
opinions  about  the  relation  of  men  and  women  will  be  the  last 
superstition  to  disappear. 

The  concurrence  of  many  in  like  emotions  associated  with 
and  centered  upon  the  same  focus  of  irritation,  makes  the 
effective  majority  of  the  state  view  the  toleration  of  intel- 
lectual  opponents  as  a  crime,  and  their  heresy,  whether  politi- 
cal, religious,  ethical  or  sexual,  is  denounced  as  a  danger  to 
civil  order,  and  the  heretic  must  be  judicially  silenced.  Thus 
all  bigots  have  reasoned  in  all  past  ages.  Thus  do  those  af- 
flicted with  our  present  sex  superstition  again  defend  their 
moral  censorship  of  literature  and  art. 

These  are  the  processes  by  which  we  always  become  in- 
capable of  deriving  profit  from  the  lessons  of  history.  That 
all  the  greatest  minds  of  every  age  believed  in  something  now 
known  to  be  false,  and  in  the  utility  of  what  is  now  deemed 
injurious  or  immoral,  never  suggests  to  petty  intellects  that 
the  future  generations  will  also  pity  us  for  having  entertained 
'  our  most  cherished  opinions. 

The  presence  of  these  designated  natural  defects,  which 
so  very  few  have  outgrown,  makes  it  quite  probable  that  the 
battle  for  intellectual  freedom  will  never  reach  an  end.  The 
few  trained  in  the  duty  of  toleration,  owe  it  to  humanity  to 
re-state,  with  great  frequency,  the  arguments  for  menta  hos- 
pitality Only  by  this  process  can  we  contribute  directly  to- 
ward the  mental  discipline  of  the  relatively  unevolved  masses, 
and  prepare  the  way  for  those  new  and  therefore  unpopular 
truths  by  which  the  race  will  progress.  The  absolute  liberty  of 
thought,  with  opportunity,  unlimited  as  between  adults,  for 

50 


its  oral  or  printed  expression  is  a  condition  precedent  to  the 
highest  development  of  our  progressive  morality. 

Men  of  strong  passions  and  weak  intellects  seldom  see  the 
expediency  of  encouraging  others  to  disagree.  Thence  came 
all  of  those  terrible  persecutions  for  heresy,  witchcraft,  sedi- 
tion, etc.,  which  have  prolonged  the  midnight  of  superstition 
into  "dark  ages."  The  passionate  zeal  of  a  masterful  few  has 
always  made  them  assume  that  they  only  could  be  trusted  to 
have  a  personal  judgment  upon  moral  questions,  while  all 
others  must  be  coerced,  unquestioningly,  to  accept  them  upon 
authority,  "with  pious  awe  and  trembling  solicitude." 

Such  egomania  always  resulted  in  the  persecution  of  those 
who  furnished  the  common  people  with  the  materials  upon 
which  they  might  base  a  different  opinion,  or  outgrow  their 
slave-virtues. 

One  of  Queen  Mary's  first  acts  was  an  inhibition  against 
reading  or  teaching  the  Bible  in  churches,  and  against  printing 
books.  In  1530,  the  king  pursuant  to  a  memorial  of  the  House 
of  Commons,  issued  a  proclamation  requiring  every  person 
"which  hath  a  New  Testament  or  the  Old,  translated  into 
"English  or  any  other  boke  of  Holy  Scripture,  so  translated, 
"beinge  in  printe,"  to  surrender  them  within  fifteen  days,  "as 
"he  will'avoyde  the  Kynge's  high  indignation  and  displeas- 
ure," which  meant  death. 

Another  and  similar  proclamation  was  issued,  covering  the 
New  Testament  and  writings  of  many  theologians.  The  act 
passed  in  the  3rd  and  4th  Edward  VI.,  repeated  this  folly.  So 
thousands  of  Bibles  were  burned  under  the  personal  super- 
vision and  benediction  of  priests  and  bishops,  because  of  the 
immoral  tendency  toward  private  judgment  involved  in  read- 
ing the  "Divine  Record."* 

Poor  William  Tyndale,  who  took  the  infinite  trouble  of 
translating  the  scriptures  into  English,  found  that,  "his  New 
"Testament  was  forthwith  burnt  in  London ;"  and  he  himself, 
after  some  years,  was  strangled  and  burnt  at  Antwerp. 
(1536  t) 

So  now  we  have  many  who  likewise  esteem  it  to  be  of 
immoral  tendency,  for  others  than  themselves  to  secure  such 

*Vickers*  Martyrdom  of  Literature,  pp.  190,  225  to  227. 
See  also  Paterson's  Liberty  of  the  Press,  p.  50. 
tBooks  Condemned  to  be  Burnt,  page  9. 


SI 


information  as  may  lead  to  a  personal  and  different  opWon 
about  the  physiology.  psycholog>%  hygiene,  or  ethics  of  sex 
:X  law  we  make  it  a  crime  to  distribute  any  specific  ^d 
deUiled  information  upon  these  subjects,  especially  if  it  l^  un 
prudish  in  its  verbiage  or  advocates  unorthodox  opm-s  abou 
marriage  or  sexual  ethics.    This  is  re^atmg  the  old  folly  tha 
•he  adult  masses  cannot  be  trusted  to  form  an  opm.on  of  the  r 
The  "free"  people  of  the  United  States  camiot  be  al- 
lowed to  have  the  information  which  might  lead  to  a  change 
of  their  own  statute  laws  upon  sex. 

There  will  always  be    those    thoughtless    enough    to    be 
lievl  thi   truth  may  be  properly  suppressed  for  con-deraticms 
orexpediency.    I  prefer  to  believe  with  P-^^ssor  Max  Mu  W. 
that  --The  truth  is  always  safe,    and    nothing   else    is   safe 
and  with  Drtimmond  that  "He  that  will  not  reason,  is  a  bigot , 
"he  that  cannot  reason,  is  a  fool,  and  he  that  dares  not  reason, 
"is  a  slave"  and  with  Thomas  Jefferson  when  in  his  inaugu- 
rl  addrTsshe  wrote,  "Error  of  opinion  may  be  tolerated,  when 
"reason  is  left  free  to  combat  it;"  and  I  believe  these  are  still 
truisms  even  though  the  subject  is  sex. 

T^^T:^^^^:^^^^  affirmations  whether 
lut  glology  or  theology,  were  promptly  beheaded  or  buni^. 
ThTck  ical^onopoUsts  denied  common  people  the  right,  not 
Lly  of  having  an  independent  judgment  as  to  the  s^ficance 
or  value  or  truth  of  "holy  writ."  but  even  denied  them  the 
Xht  to  read  the  book  itself,  because  it  would  tempt  then,  to 
;;5ependent  judgment,  which  might  be  erroneous,  and  thv.» 

make  them  "immoral."  toirether 

The  contents  and  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible,  together 
with  the  political  tyranny  founded  on  these  ";"«*,  v.>th 
Cmble  prostration  of  intellect."  be  unquest.omngly  accepted 
Those  who  disputed  the  self-constituted  --;»! J-^";  .^^^^.^ 
were  promptly  killed.  And  now,  those  who,  without  humble 
Vost'ration  li  intellect,"  dispute  any  of  the  -ady-made  ^^o- 
rance  on  the  physiology,  hygiene  and  psycho^^  ^^Z^n- 
sex.  are  promptly  sent  to  jail.    Yet  we  call  this  a    free 

trv   and  our  age  a  "civilized  '  one.  ^ 

^'bT  the  same  appeal  to  a  misguided  expediency,  we  find 
that  only  a  few  vears  ago  it  was  a  crime  to  teach  a  negro 
Ive  how  to  read  or  write.    Education  would  make  him  doubt 

^2 


his  slave-virtues,  and  with  a  consciousness  of  the  injustice 
being  inflicted  upon  him,  he  might  disturb  the  public  order 
to  secure  redress.  So,  imparting  education  became  immoral, 
and  was  made  a  crime.  An  effort  was  made  to  make  it  a  crime 
to  send  anti-slavery  literature  through  the  mails  because  of  its 
immoral  tendency,  and  southern  postmasters  often  destroyed 
it  without  warrant  of  law,  before  delivery  to  those  to  whom  it 
was  addressed. 

Within  the  past  century,  married  women  had  no  rights 
which  their  husbands  need  respect,  and  education  to  women 
was  made  impossible,  though  the  imparting  of  it  was  not 
penalized.  Now  they  may  acquire  an  education  about  every- 
thing, except  what  ought  to  be  the  most  important  to  them, 
namely:  a  scientific  knowledge  of  the  ethics,  physiology, 
hygiene,  and  psychology  of  sex.  To  furnish  them  with 
literature  of  the  highest  scientific  order,  even  though  true 
and  distributed  from  good  motives,  or  in  print  to  argue  for 
their  "natural  right  and  necessity  for  sexual  self-government," 
is  now  a  crime,  and  we  call  it  **obscenity"  and  "indecency." 

Formerly,  when  bigots  were  rampant  and  openly  domi- 
nant, the  old  superstition  punished  the  psychological  crime  of 
"immoral  thinking,"  because  it  was  irreligious,  and  it  was 
called  "sedition,"  "blasphemy,"  etc.  Under  the  present  verbal 
disguise,  the  same  old  superstition  punishes  the  psychological 
crime  of  immoral  thinking,  because  it  may  discredit  the  ethical 
claims  of  religious  asceticism,  and  now  we  call  it  "obscenity" 
and  "indecency."  What  is  the  difference  between  the  old  and 
the  new  superstition  and  persecution? 

Strange  to  say,  there  are  hundreds  of  thousands  of  the  un- 
churched, who,  for  want  of  clear  mental  vision  or  adequate 
moral  courage,  are  fostering  the  suppression  of  unconventional 
thinking,  and  justify  it,  upon  considerations  of  expediency. 
The  argument  against  the  expediency  of  truth  is  ever  the 
last  refuge  of  retreating  error,  a  weak  subterfuge  to  conceal 
a  dawning  consciousness  of  ignorance.  In  all  history,  one 
cannot  find  a  single  instance  in  which  an  enlargement  of  op- 
portunity for  the  propagation  of  unpopular  allegations  of  truth 
has  not  resulted  in  increased  good. 

"If  I  were  asked,  'What  opinion,  from  the  commencement 
of  history  to  the  present  hour,  had  been  productive  of  the 
most  injury  to  mankind?'  I  should  answer,  without  hesita- 
tion !  'The  inexpediency  of  pubh'shing  sentiments  of  supposed 

53 


4i 


*t 


« 


<( 


(( 


"bad  tendency.* "  It  is  this  infamous  opinion  which  has  made 
the  world  a  vale  of  tears,  and  drenched  it  with  the  blood  of 
martyrs. 

I  am  fully  mindful  of  the  fact  that  an  unrestricted  press 
means  that  some  abuse  of  the  freecTom  of  the  press  will  result. 
However,  I  also  remember  that  no  man  can  tell  a  priori  what 
opinion  is  of  immoral  tendency.  I  am  furthermore  mindful 
that  we  cannot  argue  against  the  use  of  a  thing,  from  the 
possibility  of  its  abuse,  since  this  objection  can  be  urged 
against  every  good  thing,  and  I  am  not  willing  to  destroy  all 
that  makes  life  pleasant.  Lord  Littleton  aptly  said:  "To 
argue  against  any  breach  of  liberty,  from  the  ill  use  that  may 
be  made  of  it,  is  to  argue  against  liberty  itself,  since  all  is 
"capable  of  being  z^bused." 

Everyone  who  believes  in  the  relative  and  progressive  mo- 
rality of  scientific  ethics,  must  logically  believe  in  the  im- 
morality of  a  code  which  preaches  absolutism  in  morals  upon 
the  authority  of  inspired  texts,  instead  of  deriving  moral  pre- 
cepts from  natural^  physical  law.  But  that  is  no  warrant  for 
the  scientific  moralist  suppressing  the  teaching  of  religious 
morality,  as  inexpedient,  even  if  he  believed  it  to  be  so  and 
had  the  power.  Neither  can  the  religious  moralist  justify 
himself  in  the  suppression  of  the  opinions  of  his  scientific 
opponents.  It  is  alone  by  comparison  and  contrast,  that  each 
perfects  his  own  system,  and  in  the  end  all  are  better  off  for 
having  permitted  the  disputation. 

No  argument  for  the  suppression  of  "obscene"  literature 
has  ever  been  offered  which,  by  unavoidable  implication,  will 
not  justify,  and  which  has  not  already  justified,  every  other 
limitation  that  has  ever  been  put  upon  mental  freedom.  No 
argument  was  ever  made  to  justify  intolerance,  whether  po- 
litical, theological,  or  scientific,  which  has  not  been  restated 
in  support  of  our  present  sex  superstitions  and  made  to  do 
duty  toward  the  suppressing  of  information  as  to  the  physi- 
ology, psychology,  or  ethics  of  sex.  All  this  class  of  argu- 
ments that  have  ever  been  made,  have  always  started  with  the 
false  assumption  that  such  qualities  as  morality  or  immorality 
could  belong  to  opinions,  or  to  a  static  fact. 

Because  violence  is  deemed  necessary  to  prevent  a  change, 
or  the  acquisition  of  an  opinion  concerning  the  hygiene, 
physiology  or  ethics  of  sex,  we  must  infer  that  those  who 
defend  the  press  censorship  are  unconsciously  claiming  om- 

54 


niscient  infallibility  for  the  present  sexual  intelligence.  If 
their  sex  opinions  were  a  product  of  mere  fallible  reason, 
they  would  not  feel  the  desirability,  the  need  or  duty  to  sup- 
press rational  criticism.  By  denying  others  the  right  of  pub- 
hshmg  either  confirmation  or  criticism,  they  admit  that  their 
present  opinions  are  a  matter  of  superstition  and  indefensible 
as  a  matter  of  reason.  To  support  a  sex  superstition  by  law 
is  just  as  reprehensible  as,  in  the  past,  it  was  to  support  the, 
now  partially  exploded,  govermental,  scientific  and  theological 
superstitions,  by  the  same  process.  This,  be  it  remembered, 
was  always  done  in  the  name  of  "morality,'^  "law  and  order  " 
etc.  ' 

There  may  still  be  those,  who  argue  that  the  persecutors 
of  Christians  were  right,  because  the  persecution  of  an  advo- 
cate  is  a  necessary  ordeal  through  which  his  truth  always 
passes  successfully ;  legal  penalties,  in  the  end,  being  power- 
less against  the  truth,  though  sometimes  beneficially  effective 
against  mischievous  error. 

It  may  be  a  historical  fact  that  all  known  truths,  for  a 
time,  have  been  crushed  by  the  bigot's  heel,  but  this  should 
not  make  us  applaud  his  iniquity.  It  is  an  aphorism  of  un- 
balanced optimists,  that  truth  crushed  to  earth  will  always 
rise.  Even  if  this  were  true,  it  must  always  remain  an  un- 
provable proposition,  because  it  postulates  that  at  every  par- 
ticular moment  we  are  ignorant  of  all  those  suppressed  truths, 
not  then  resurrected,  and  since  we  do  not  know  them,  we 
cannot  prove  that  they  ever  will  be  resurrected.  It  would 
be  interesting  to  know  how  one  could  prove  that  an  unknown 
truth  of  past  suppression  is  going  to  be  rediscovered,  or  that 
the  conditions  which  alone  once  made  it  a  cognizable  fact 
will  ever  again  come  into  being.  And  yet  a  knowledge  of 
It  might  have  a  very  important  bearing  on  some  present  con- 
troversy of  moment. 

Surely,  many  dogmas  have  been  wholly  suppressed  which 
were  once  just  as  earnestly  believed  to  be  as  infallibly  true 
as  some  that  are  now  accepted  as  inspired  writ.  Just  a  little 
more  strenuosity  in  persecution  would  have  wiped  out  all 
Christians,  if  not  Christianity  itself.  How  can  we  prove  that 
all  the  suppressed,  and  now  unknown,  dogmas  were  false  ?  If 
mere  survival  after  persecution  is  deemed  evidence  of  the  in- 
errancy of  an  opinion,  then  which  of  the  many  conflicting  opin- 
ions, each  a  survivor  of  persecution,  are  unquestionably  true, 

55 


and  how  is  the  choice  to  be  made  from  the  mass?  Is  it  not 
dear  that  neither  a  rediscovery,  nor  a  surv.val  after  persecu- 
tion can  have  any  special  relation  to  truth  as  such?  If  it  is. 
hTri  S  us  unite  to  denounce  as  an  unprovable  hallucmat.on 
the  statement  that  truth  crushed  to  earth  will  nse  agam^ 

The  abettors  of  persecution  are  more  damaged  than  those 
whom  they  deter  from  expressing  and    defending  unpopukr 
opinions,   since    as   between   these,   only   the    former   a  e   de^ 
priving  themselves  of  the  chief  means  of  correctmg  the.r  own 
errors'    But  the  great  mass  of  people  belong  "e-ther  to  th 
intellectual  innovators,  nor  to  their  persecutors.     The  great 
lllde  might  be  quite  wiUing  to  listen  to  or  read  uncon- 
ventional  thoughts   if   ever  permitted,   am.d   opportunity,   to 
exercise  an  uncoerced  choice.  ,       „ 

Much  of  the  justification  for  intolerance  derives  its  au- 
thority  from   false  analogies,  wrongfully   earned  over   from 
physical  relations  into  the  realm  of  the  psych.c. 
"^  'Thus  some  argue  that  because,  by  laws,  we  Protect  the 
incompetent  against  being  (unconsciously)  ^^^^'^^J^^^^ 
tagious  disease,  therefore  the  state  should  also  protect  them 
(even  though  mature  and  able  to  protect  themselves  by  mere 
nattentionf  against  the  literature  of  infectious  moral  poison- 
Here  a  figure  of  speech  is  mistaken  for  an  analogy.      Moral 
"poison"  exists  only  figuratively  and  not  literally  in  any  such 
sense  as  strychnine  is  a  poison. 

Ethics  is  not  one  of  the  exact  sciences.  Probab  y  it  never 
will  be.  Until  we  are  at  least  approximately  as  certain  of  the 
Txistence  and  tests  of  "moral  poison,"  as  we  are  of  the  phys.  1 
characteristics  and  consequences  of  carbolic  ^<=>d.  ^^''^ 

to  talk  of  "moral  poison"  except  as  a  matter  of  Po^tc  license.^ 

In  the  realm  of  morals  no  age  has  ever  shown  an  agree 
„ent,  even  amongst  its  wisest  and  best  men,  either  as  to  wha 
is  morally  poisonous,  or  by  what  test  it  is  to  be  judged  as 
morally  deadly.     Moral  concepts  are  a  matter  of  geography 
Z  evolution.'  The  morality  of  one  country  or  age  is  v.ewed 
as  the  moral  poison  of  another  country  or  age.    The  defended 
morality  of  one  social  or  business  circle  is  deemed  the  im- 
morality of  another.     The  ideals  which  attach  to  one  man  s 
SS    are  those  of  another  man's  devil.      Furthermore,  our 
S^'scLific  thinkers  concur  in  the  bdief  that  all  morality 
is  relative  and  progressive,  whereas  numerous  other  men  deem 
a  part  or  all  of  our  conduct  to  be  per  se  moral  or  immoral. 

S6 


Some  deem  the  source  of  authority  in  matters  of  morals  to 
be  God,  as  his  will  is  manifested  through  the  revelations  or 
prophets  of  his  particular  church,  or  that  interpretation  of 
them,  which  some  particular  branch  of  some  particular  church 
promulgates.  Others  find  morality  only  in  the  most  health- 
giving  adjustment  to  natural  law,  and  still  others  find  their 
authority  m  a  conscience,  unburdened,  either  with  supernatural 
light,  or  worldly  wisdom.  Only  the  generous  exercise  of  the 
most  free  discussion  can  help  us  out  of  this  chaos. 
_^  Philosophers  tell  us  that  life  is  "the  continuous  adjustment 
of  internal  relations  to  external  relations."  The  use  of  con- 
scious efl^ort  toward  the  achievement  of  the  fullest  life,  through 
our  most  harmonious  conformity  to  natural  laws,  is  the  es- 
sential distinction  between  the  human  and  other  animals. 

Observance  of  natural  law  is  the  unavoidable  condition  of 
all  life,  and  a  knowledge  of  those  laws  is  a  condition  precedent 
to  all  eflFort  for  securing  well-being,  through  conscious  adjust- 
ment to  them.  It  follows  that  an  opportunity  for  an  acquain- 
tance with  nature's  processes,  unlimited  by  human  coercion,  is 
the  equal  and  inalienable  right  of  every  human  being,  because 
essential  to  his  life,  liberty,  and  pursuit  of  happiness.  No 
exception  can  be  made  for  the  law  of  our  sex  nature. 

It  also  follows  that  in  formulating  our  conception  of  what 
is  the  law  of  nature,  and  in  its  adjustment  or  application  by 
us  to  our  infinitely  varied  personal  constitutions,  each  sane 
adult  human  is  the  sovereign  of  his  own  destiny  and  never 
properly  within  the  control  of  any  other  person,  until  some  one, 
not  an  undeceived  voluntary  participant  is  directly  affected 
thereby  to  his  injury. 

The  laws  for  the  suppression  of  "obscene"  literature  as 
administered,  deny  to  adults  the  access  to  part  of  the  alleged 
facts  and  arguments  concerning  our  sex  nature,  and  therefore 
are  a  violation  of  the  above  rules  of  right  and  conduct. 

We  all  believe  in  intellectual  and  moral  progress.  There- 
fore, whatever  may  be  tiie  character  or  subject  of  a  man's 
opinions,  others  have  the  right  to  express  their  judgments 
upon  them ;  to  censure  them,  if  deemed  censurable ;  or  turn 
them  to  ridicule,  if  deemed  ridiculous.  If  such  right  is  not 
protected  by  law,  we  should  have  no  security  against  the 
exposition  or  perpetuity  of  error,  and  therefore  we  should 
hamper  progress. 

It  follows  that  the  believer  in  a  personal  God  or  in  the 

57 


Trinity,  the  Mormon  with  his  "Adam-God/'  the  Agnostic  with 
his  ''Unknowable,"  the  Christian-scientist  with  his  impersonal 
"All  mind  and  all  love"  God,  the  Unitarian  with  his  "Purpose- 
ful Divine  Imminence,"  the  Theosophist  with  his  godless  *'Nir- 
"vana,"  and  the  Atheist,  all  have  an  equal  right  to  vie  with 
each  other  for  public  favor;  and,  incidentally,  to  censure  or 
ridicule  any  crudities  which  they  may  believe  they  see  in  any 
or  all  rival  conceptions. 

It  is  only  by  recognition  and  exercise  of  such  a  liberty 
that  humanity  has  evolved  from  the  primal  sex-worship 
through  the  innumerable  phases  of  nature  worship  to  our 
present  relatively  exalted  religious  opinion.  Even  though  we 
reject  all,  or  all  but  one,  of  the  numerous  modern  anthropo- 
morphic and  deistic  conceptions  of  God,  we  must  still  admit 
that  each  of  these  is  based  upon  a  more  enlightened  and  en- 
larged conception  of  the  Universe  and  man's  relation  to  it, 
than  can  possibly  be  implied  in  the  worship  of  the  phallus. 
Thus  liberty  of  thought  and  of  its  expression  has  been  and 
will  continue  to  be  the  one  indispensable  condition  to  the  im 
provement  of  religions. 

If  we  are  not  thus  far  agreed  as  to  the  equal  moral  rights 
of  each,  then  which  one  has  less  right  than  the  rest?     It  is 
beyond  question  that  the  solitary  man  has  an  unlimited  right 
of  expressing  his  opinion,  since  there  is  no  one  to  deny  him 
the  right.     With  the  advent  of  the  second  man  surely  he 
still  has  the  same  right  with  the  consent  of  that  second  man. 
How  many  more  persons  must  join  the  community  before 
they  acquire  the  moral  warrant  for  denying  the  second  man 
the  right  and  the  opportunity  to  listen  to,  or  to  read,  anything 
the  other  may  speak  or  write,  even  though  the  subject  be 
theology  or  sex-morality?    By  what  impersonal  standard  (not 
one  based  merely  upon  individual  preferences)   shall  we  ad- 
judge the  forfeiture  of  such  individual  rights,  if  forfeiture 
is  to  be  enforced  by  a  limitation? 

If  such  impersonal  standard  cannot  be  furnished  then 
the  argument  must  proceed  as  follows :  if  all  disputants  have 
the  equal  right  to  question  and  deride  the  conceptions  of  all 
the  rest  as  to  the  existence,  nature  or  knowableness  of  their 
respective  God,  then  they  have  an  equal  right  to  question  the 
divine  origin  or  interpretation  of  that  which  others  believe  to 
be  divine  revelation. 

If  men  have  a  right  to  cast  doubt  upon  the  source  and 

58 


Sen  ta"fht  bv  'Tf  • ''''  "'"'  ^^'^"  ^^^^^^  '^  have 
been  taught  by  such  divme  revelation,  even  though  the  sub- 
ject be  the  relation  of  the  sexes. 

More  specifically,  that    means    this :    the    Catholic    prie.t 

cehbacy    the  one  may  argue  for,  and  the  other  against    the 

io7T    T"l  '''  '"^  '^^^^'  ^"^  ^^^^-^-^  continence,' and 

cienific      h    .       7'  ^''"^^  ^"  ^'^  ^^^^--'  h-^--l  or 
sc^ntific,  which  IS  deemed  material;  the  marriage  purists  may 

argue  for  and  others  against,  the  superior  morality  of  having 

sexual  relation  only  for  the  purpose    of  procreation ;  the  Biblf 

Communist  of  Oneida  may  advocate,  as  others  deny,  the  sup! 

cZrTsts  '  'h"'"'  ^^^^'*"  ^'^  Episcopalians  and  EthTcal 
Cultunsts  may  advocate,  as  others  deny,  the  superior  morality 
o  indissoluble  monogamy;  the  Agnostic  or  Liberal  Religion^ 
-t  may  advocate,  and  others  may  deny,  the  superior  morally 

the  superior  morality  of  stirpiculture  with  or  without  mono 
gamic  marriage;  the  Mormon  may  advocate,  as  othe  s  deny, 
the  superior  morality  of  polygamy,  etc.,  etc.  ^ 

violation^  ^''r'''  ''""'  '^''  '^'y  ^^  "°^  ^d-ocate  the 
violation  of  existing  marriage  laws,  but  limit  their  demand 

TrnTT'  '^  ^  ''''''  ^^  ™^"^^"^  ^'  ^^-^  ^-s,  Toas 
TrernMatr  ^^"'^™^^^^  '^  ^^^^  -P-tive  ideals.     Under 
present  laws  numerous  persons  have  been  arrested  for  mak- 
ing arguments  in  favor  of  some  of  the  foregoing  propo sitToTs 
whi^e  advocates  of  the  contrary  view  have  gL  l\nllZ[ 

t^  mT  th  t      r  1'  ^'  ''  ^""""^  ^^"'^"^^^  -^  i^  -ems 
to  me  that  ridicule,   fact  and  argument,  unrestricted  as  to 

adults,  are  the  only  means  by  which  the  race  can  secure  that 

riir^"'  f  r^'r'^"  ^'  -^^^^^  ^^^^^^^  -^^^^  -  --"^^^^^^^^ 

higher  moral  development. 

,Hfi?'  Tfl.  '"'*'^"'^'  °^  °"^  ^Se  i^  the  despised  super- 
TZZ  f "''"  "'  ^"^"^^'"^  ^^-  Thus  we  h'ave 
tr7^  Li^  !^  °"''  '"''"*'  '"°''^"*y  ''  concerned,  through 
emir .  '  "'^^"™-*«  promiscuity,  group  marriage, 
femaje  slavery,  the  sacred  debauchery  of  sex-worship,  pofy- 

^^nrl'^"""''  *'  '''''^''■'"'  '"^^^'  -^f  ^«<^^««  and  sex- 
perverts,  o  our  present  standards,  and  the  course  of  moral 
evolution  IS  not  yet  ended. 

59 


i 


Since,  then,  the  very  superiority  of  our  present  morality 
is  due  to  the  liberty  of  thinking  and  of  exchanging  thoughts, 
how  absurd  and  outrageous  it  is  now  to  impair  or  destroy  the 
very  basis  upon  which  it  rests,  and  upon  which  must  depend 
the  further  development  of  our  progressive  morality. 

Since  advancement  in  the  refining  of  our  ethical  concep- 
tions is  conditioned  upon  experimentation  and  the  dissemina- 
tion of  its  observed  results,  it  follows  that  the  most  immoral 
of  present  tendencies  is  that  which  arrests  moral  progress 
by  limiting  the  freedom  of  speech  and  press.  When  viewed 
in  long  perspective  it  also  follows  that  we  must  conclude  that 
the  most  immoral  persons  of  our  time  are  those  who  are 
now  successfully  stifling  discussion,  and  restricting  the  spread 
of  sexual  intelligence,  because  they  are  most  responsible  for 
impeding  moral  progress,  as  to  the  relations  of  men  and 
women. 

Those  who  in  these  particulars  deny  a  freedom  of  speech 
and  press  and  the  correlative  right  to  hear,  unlimited  as  to 
all  sane  adults,  by  their  very  act  of  denial,  exercise  a  right 
which  they  would  suppress  in  others.  The  true  believer  in 
equality  of  liberty  allows  others  the  right  to  speak  against 
free  speech,  though  he  may  not  be  so  hospitable  as  to  its 
actual  suppression.  No  man  is  truly  liberal  who  is  unwilling 
to  defend  the  right  of  others  to  disagree  with  him,  even  about 
free-love,  polygamy,  or  stirpiculture. 

If  our  conceptions  of  sexual  morality  have  a  rational  foun- 
dation, then  they  are  capable  of  adequate  rational  defence, 
and  there  is  no  need  for  legislative  suppression  of  discussion. 
If  our  sex  ethics  will  not  bear  critical  scrutiny  and  discussion 
then  to  suppress  such  discussion  is  infamous,  because  it  is 
a  legalized  support  of  error.  In  either  case  the  freest  pos- 
sible discussion  is  a  necessary  condition  of  the  progressive  elim- 
ination of  error. 

No  man  can  help  believing  that  which  he  believes.  Belief 
is  not  a  matter  of  volition.  No  man,  by  an  act  of  will,  can  make 
himself  believe  that  twice  two  are  six.  He  may  say  it,  but 
he  cannot  believe  it,  that  is,  he  cannot  acquire  the  correspond- 
ing concept.  No  man,  solely  by  an  act  of  will,  can  stop 
thinking.  No  man  can  tell  what  he  will  think  tomorrow,  nor 
arbitrarily  determine  what  he  will  think  next  year. 

If  there  still  remain  any  believers  in  the  free-will  super- 
stition, as  applied  to  matters  of  belief,  each  of  them  can,  by 

60 


'     r 


a  simple  test,  demonstrate  to  himself  the  impossibility  of  ar- 
bitrarily controlling  his  conviction.  Let  him,  solely  by  an 
uncaused  exercise  of  his  "free-will,"  abolish  his  belief  in  its 
existence,  and  substitute  the  conviction  that  a  man  in  his  men- 
tal life  is  a  mere  irresponsible  automaton.  Then,  having  firmly 
held  this  latter  conviction  for  just  ten  days,  let  him,  by  another 
act  of  the  "free-will"  (which  then,  he  does  not  believe  in), 
restore  his  belief  in  its  existence.  Not  until  I  find  a  sane  man 
who  honestly  believes  that  he  has  performed  this,  to  me  im- 
possible feat,  can  I  admit  that  the  existence  of  a  '* free-will*' 
as  applied  to  our  thought-products,  is  even  a  debatable  ques- 
tion. 

**Free  will"  in  the  determination  of  one's  opinion  is  but 
a  special  phase  of  the  general  "free-will"  doctrine.  Those 
who,  in  spite  of  the  foregoing  suggestions,  continue  to  be- 
lieve in  the  lawlessness  of  the  intellect  and  their  own  ability 
to  believe  doctrines  without  evidence  or  against  what  to  them- 
selves seems  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence,  must  be  re- 
ferred to  the  scientific  literature  upon  the  subject.* 

Professor  Fiske,  in  his  Cosmic  Philosophy,  fully  considers 
and  answers  all  the  arguments  for  a  "lawlessness  of  volition" 
and  concludes  his  discussion  with  these  paragraphs : 

"From  whatever  scientific  standpoint  we  contemplate  the 
doctrine  of  lawlessness  of  volition,  we  find  that  its  plausible- 
ness  depends  solely  on  tricks  of  language.  The  first  trick  is 
the  personification  of  will  as  an  entity  distinct  from  all  acts 
of  volition ;  the  second  trick  is  the  ascription  to  this  entity 
"of  'freedom,'  a  word  which  is  meaningless  as  applied  to  the 
"process  whereby  feeling  initiates  action ;  the  third  trick  is 
"the  assumption  that  desires  or  motives  are  entities  outside  of 
"a  person,  so  that  if  his  acts  of  volition  were  influenced  hv 
"them  he  would  be  robbed  of  his  freedom. 

"Whatever  may  be  our  official  theories,  we  all  practically 
ignore  and  discredit  the  doctrine  that  volition  is  lawless. 
Whatever  voice  of  tradition  we  may  be  in  the  habit  of  echo- 
"ing,  we  do  equally,  from  the  earliest  to  the  latest  day  of  our 
"self-conscious  existence,  act  and  calculate  upon  the  supposi- 

♦Maudsley,  "Body  and  Mind,"  Part  I ;  Herbert  Spencer, 
"Principles  of  Psychology,"  Vol.  I,  pp.  495  to  613 ;  Ribot, 
"Diseases  of  the  Will";  John  Fiske,  "Cosmic  Philosophy," 
Vol.  II,  chap.  17. 

61 


<< 


(t 


tt 


(( 


tt 


<< 


"tion  that  volition,  alike  in  ourselves  and  in  others,  follows 
•invariably  the  strongest  motive. 

"Finally  in  turning  our  attention  to  history,  we  have  lou 

...poch   is   so  .n^iMy  ,*f'"*"'   "•::„^i„f  SS   *« 
•fV^oiKThts    desires  and  volitions  in  the  preceaing  epuc  , 
.S"'.  «n  "  of  ,he  tal..sn.ss  of  volition  a,.  <orc.d  » 

..r;tr«.i™o„y  o,  his,o,„^.  .r.  •.;* -Jj^Jt 
'admit  that  law  is  co-extensive  with  all  orders  oi  p 

■•"^iris  raXTrlrblelX  character  of  the  present 
-age  or  scS  enUghtenment  that  such  a  statement  should 
•  nSd  to  be  made,  or  that  twenty-six  pages  of  critical  argument 
•'should  be  required  to  illustrate  it.  i„u„,,t«. 

'■To  manv    this  chapter  will  no  doubt  seem  an  elaborate 
"attemptrp'r'ove  *e  multiplication  table.    Neverthele-^  where 

•'  rblinding  metaphysical  dust  has  ^^^^^^^^'^^^X^^^ 
"of  the  cold  water  of  common  sense  may  be  not  only  harmi 

""'"olr  beliefs  are  not  a  matter  of  uncaused  choice^ 
unconventional  or  miscalled    imm  f  ^^^^^^ 

.i.ht;™  ™'  iiona,  .hough  -"•«•  ^-j ,' .3 .T.:; 

Z    Those  »ho  advocate  a  .noral  censorship  of  W'"'""  "" 

:rTt^e:f,\=rorth:s^«^ 

sequences,     iw  f'  .  .         .  ..       transformed 

be  assimilated  by  the  receiving  mind,  ^nd  then 
into  injurious  non-selfregarding  action.  J^^ef^"  '*  ^*  *^^ 
"nduc   and  never  directly  the  opinion  whjch  is  ™-l- 
Some  who  justify  intolerance  admit  this,  and  think  they 

62 


I     > 


a. 


n. 


ft. 


evade  its  consequences  by  saying  thac  they  beheve  in  punish- 
ing difference  of  opinion,  only  in  its  expression,  which  is 
acting,  not  thinking.  ^Thinking  is  free^  they  say,  ^^ut 
"speech  is  so  only  by  tolerance,  not  as  a  matter  of  right  No 
'man  may  injure  us  by  his  speech,  any  more  than  with  his 
club.  The  spoken  or  printed  word  may  be  an  act  as  guilty, 
'as  inexcusable  and  as  painful  as  a  knife-thrust/*  This  is  all 
true,  but  rightly  interpreted,  is  no  answer  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  freedom  of  speech,  rightly  understood. 

Save  in  palliating  exceptions,  well  recognized  in  the  law 
of  hbel  and  slander,  you  may  not  talk  about  one  person  to 
another,  so  as  wantonly  to  injure  the  former  in  his  good 
name,  credit,  property,  etc.  This,  however,  cannot  be  made 
to  justify  the  proposition  that  you  may  not,  with  the  con- 
sent of  the  listeners  or  readers,  express  to  them  any  speculative 
conviction,  upon  any  subject,  even  sex,  which  is  not  directly 
mvasive  of  anyone^s  rights  or  equality  of  liberty.  That  speech 
is  free  only  by  tolerance  is  also  an  acceptable  maxim,  if  we 
understand  the  tolerance  of  the  sane  adult  listener,  or  reader, 
and  not  the  tolerance  of  others.  No  one  should,  or  can,  be 
compelled  to  read  anything  or  to  assimilate  what  he  rekds 
Consequently  nobody  needs  the  help  of  the  state  to  protect  him 
against  compulsory  intellectual  exercise. 

The  right  of  expression  of  opinion  is  inseparable  from  the 
right  to  hear  and  weigh  arguments.     The  state  can  have  no 
property  right  in  the  unchangeableness  of  anyone^s  opinions, 
even  about  sexual  ethics,  such  as  to  warrant  it  in  prohibiting 
him  from  altering  such  opinions.     If  the  state  has  no  right 
to  prohibit  a  change  of  view,  it  has  no  moral  right  to  compel 
attendance  at  church  or  elsewhere,  for  the  purpose  of  unify- 
ing thought,  nor  to  prohibit  anyone  from  supplying  the  facts 
and   arguments   which   may   be   the   means   of   producing   a 
changed  view.    This  conclusion  is  not  to  be  altered  according 
to  whether  the  ideas  are  woven  into  poetry,  fiction,  painting, 
music  or  science.     No  one  can  compel  another  to  read  •  no 
one   can    rightfully   deny    him    the   privilege    of   reading,'   or 
another,  the  opportunity  of  preparing  or  furnishing  him  the 
reading  matter  upon  request ;  none  but  an  insufferable  tyrant 
would  attempt  such  a  thing,  even  upon  the  subject  of  sex.    To 
deny  one  the  right  to  come  into  possession  of  part  of  the  evi- 
dence IS  just  as  objectionable  as  to  compel  attendance  where 
only  the  rest  of  the  evidence  will  be  related. 

63 


t 


c  ^™ninn    through  added  knowledge  and  its 

A  change  o    °P-°;;j;^^°"/,„3    intellectual   development 

rational     assimilation,   ^^^"^^  ^f  j^j^ry  shall  ever 

which  can  seldom  injure  anyone      But  ^     y       ^^^.^^^_ 

come  to  us  by  our  acqmsition  «    "^^  ;7„^;       „f  another's 
„,ent  of  new  opinions,  then,  unhke    he  W  ^^^^^^ 

knife-thrust  it  comes  only  by  our  active  co    p 
the  accomplishment  of  that  injury  acceptance 

Usually  thejmlury-^^^^^^^  ,,  ..ose 

of  unpopular  beliefs,  «'«t^  °    ^  j^  „^^er  be  entrusted 

holding  contrary  opm.ons,  «"d  th^y/^^  ;  sane  adults, 

with  the  always  dangerous  ^^J^^^J^''^^^  ^^desired,  ready- 
against  their  protest  any  «"*PP7;*;/j;J^  minorities  must 
made,  intellectual  ^»^^,^'"^-^ i^J. ""'.Hxp  ess  their  opinions 
have  the  same  right  ^^^^^^^^^^^^  as  the  majority 
and  to  try  to  secure  the  majority  e  ^^  ^^^^^^^  ^„ 

have  to  express  contrary  ones.    To  deny  t  ^^^ 

possibility  for  |n-lf-\jXa"d\hese  innovators,  and 
at  first  revealed  only  to  the  tew    ^  stupidity 

their  advanced  ideas,  are  '"vanably  d^ounced  by     ^^^^  p^^^^ 
of  an  unreasoning  conservatism,     ^s  is  ^^  ^^^^ 

the  hygiene,  physiology,  P^^^jj^^f  ^^^^^^^  for  a  liberty  of 
anything  else.    In  support  of  th.s  conte  ^^.^^^  ^^„3,. 

"or  whatever  be  its  ^^-^^^^^'.^f^Z^Jy^^^  or  its  truth 
.,s  either  manifestly  true  ^  ;\X";t  ma-^-^'^  g^^'  °' 
"or  falsehood  is  dubious.  Its  t^^^^^^  ,  ^  ^here  are  no 
"manifestly  bad,  or  it  is  dubious  ^VCts  of  the  problem, 
"other  assignable  conditions,  no  ^therfunc^"';^  °        JP^  ^^^^ 

"In  the  case  of  its  ^-^/J-SCrLe  of  its  being 
"ency  there  can  be  no  f  P"*^.  ^^^^  .,  <^,„  mislead  nobody, 
"manifestly  otherwise ;  for  by  the  t«ms  ^^^^^^^ 

""  '''  '-^"^  r  ''':STZ^T^^^^^^  evil,  but  full  and 
"can  bring  the  good  to  I'^t' °;  ^  ^  a  plausible  fallacy  may 
"free  discussion.    Until  thts  take  p^^  ,  a  P  ^^^  ^^  ^^^^.^ 

"do  harm ;  but  discussion  is  ^"'^  ^^^^^^  '"  ,3^  .^^  do  it." 

"opinion  on  a  P^P^J ^^^ ^6  r^^^^^^^^^^  Review: 
Again,  quotmg  from  Vol.  &  ot  ,  ^j^  f^r  de- 

..It  is  obvious  there  .s  -    ertain^^^^^^  ^  ^^^^^^  ^^  ^^.. 

"termining,  o  /"•»<>".  whether  an    v 

64 


t(j 


<( 


«> 


«   ■  * 


^cious,  and  that  if  any  person  be  authorized  to  decide,  unfet- 
*tered  by  such  a  rule,  that  person  is  a  despot.  To  decide  what 
'opinions  shall  be  permitted  and  what  prohibited,  is  to  choose 
•'opinions  for  the  people;  since  they  cannot  adopt  opinions 
"which  are  not  suffered  to  be  presented  to  their  minds.  Who- 
I'ever  chooses  opinions  for  the  people  possesses  absolute  control 
"over  their  actions,  and  may  wield  them  for  his  own  purposes 
"with  perfect  security,  and  for  evil  as  well  as  for  good  unless 
"infallible." 

If  there  exists  an  opinion,  the  truth  or  falsity  of  which  is 
unanimously  conceded  to  be  of  no  consequence  to  humanity, 
either  for  good  or  evil,  then  no  excuse  can  be  given  for  sup- 
pressing it,  and  indeed,  no  one  would  be  interested  to  prohibit 
its  discussion  or  to  discuss  it.  If  the  truth  of  an  opinion  is 
by  any  deemed  to  be  of  consequence  to  humanity,  then  there 
exist  only  reasons  for  encouraging  the  greatest  freedom  of 
discussion  and  experimentation,  since  these  are  the  only  ave- 
nues to  the  correction  of  any  opinions,  even  upon  the  subject 
of  sexual  physiology,  psychology,  hygiene,  or  ethics. 

So  long  as  there  is,  among  sane  adults,  difference  of  opinion 
about  anything,  our  race  has  not  as  to  that  subject  matter  at- 
tained to  certain  knowledge,  and  only  freedom  in  the  inter- 
change of  opinion  and  experimentation  can  help  us  onward. 
When  our  knowledge  of  sex,  religion,  etc.,  has  been  established 
to  a  mathematical  certainty  there  will  be  no  difference  of  opin- 
ion, and  to  suppress  or  abridge  discussion  upon  these  subjects 
before  we  have  reached  mathematical  certainty  for  our  con- 
clusions, is  an  outrage  because  it  is  the  most  effective  bar  to 
our  attainment  of  such  certitude. 

But  it  is  said,  this  justifies  the  spread  of  "dangerous"  opin- 
ions. Yes,  it  does.  It  is  time  enough  to  punish  dangerous 
opinions  when  the  ''danger"  has  ceased  to  be  merely  specula- 
tive and  hypothetical;  that  is  when  it  is  shown  to  have  ac- 
tually resulted  in  the  violent  or  fraudulent  invasion  of  nature's 
rule  of  justice. 

If  the  advocate  of  a  "dangerous"  opinion  has  not  himself 
been  induced  by  it  to  commit  an  unjust  interference  with  the 
largest  equal  liberty  of  others,  it  is  improbable  that  it  will 
induce  his  hearers  or  readers  to  become  invaders.  If  the  opin- 
ion is  dangerous  in  those  who  might  hear  or  read  it,  it  is  pre- 
sumably equally  dangerous  in  the  mind  of  him  who  would 
express   it   verbally,   if  permitted.      If   we   are   warranted   in 

6S 


excluding  the  opinion  from  the  minds  of  others  because  it 
tends  towards  '-dangerous"  acts,  then  we  are  also  warranted 
in  making  such  dangerous  acts  impossible  to  those  who  already 
entertain  such  "dangerous"  opinions.     Furthermore,  we  can- 
not then  be  logically  compelled  to  await  the  reahzat.on  of 
that  danger  from  those  already  convinced,  any  more  than  from 
those  about  to  be  convinced.     Such  premises  bring  us  una- 
voidably to  the  result  that  society  would  be  justified  m  engag- 
ing in  inquisitions  for  the  discovery  of  every  man  s  opmions. 
wfth  the  purpose  of  incarcerating  him  for  hfe    or  until  a 
change  of  conviction,  as  a  means  of  preventing  the    danger 
which  his  opinions  are  supposed  to  threaten.    Thus  the  demal 
of  an  unlimited  liberty  of  speech  and  press  leads  us  by  una- 
voidable logic  back  to  a  total  denial  of  both  liberty  and  secrecy 

of  conscience.  ,     ^,      ...  ^^,, 

Since   these    speculative    and   hypothetically      dangerous 
opinions  are  to  have  their  dangerousness  determined  wholly 
by  a  priori  methods,  no  limitation  by  way  of  general  rule  can 
possibly  be  put  upon  the  whim,  caprice,  or  superstitious  fears 
of  the  mob.    It  follows  that  if  we  are  to  justify  any  suppres- 
sion whatever,  of  the  expression  of  any  opinion  whatever   we 
by   necessary    inference    admit    the    existence   of    a    rightful 
authority  for  every  inquisition,  and  the  punishment  of  every 
unpopular  opinion,  though  silently  and  harmlessly  entertained^ 
There  is  no  line  which  can  be  drawn  between  admitting  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  State  to  incarcerate  any  man  for  any  opinion 
whatever,  even  those  secretly  entertained,  and  the  liberty  of 
conscience,  speech  and  press  unrestricted  even  in  the  very  sligh- 
test degree.    The  initial  act  of  tyranny  by  which  we  now  justify 
our  present  abridgements  of  the  liberty  of  speech  and  press 
thus  furnishes  the  precedent  and  justification  for  a  total  denial 

of  the  liberty  of  conscience.  ,      •  • 

If  we  would  preserve  any  semblance  of  liberty  of  opinion, 
it  must  be  liberty  for  the  entertainment  and  expression  of  any 
opinion  whatever.  Let  us  then  put  ourselves  ^'-1^  °"  ^^^'^t 
of  those  who  would  never  punish  any  opinion,  until  it  had  resul 
ted  in  an  overt  act  of  invasion,  and  then  punish  the  holder  o 
the  "dangerous"  opinion  only  for  his  real  participation  m  that 
act.  as  a  proven  accessory,  and  not  otherwise. 

This  then  brings  us  back  to  that  firm  fo'^^Jation  of  liberty 
which  was  expressed  by  Holt  in  his  "Law  of  Libel  (p.  72. 
1816)   in  these  words:  "Private  immorality  or  vice  without 

66 


XtaMs^erS'   ^"'  '""f""^'  ^"'  *^™'"^^'"S  -  the  indi- 
viauai,  IS  left  to  a  more  solemn  reckoning  " 

tion^o'TirT  "'*'"^''*  ''  ^"""'^  •"  ^^'^"^  Spencer's  defini- 
tion of  hberty,  expressed  by  him  in  these  words:  "Every  man 

has  freedom  to  do  all  that  he  wills,  provided  he  infringes  n" 
the  equal  freedom  of  any  other  man."  No  opinion  even 
though  It  advc^ates  such  infringement  of  another's  equa  free- 
don,  can  by  the  mere  verbal  expression  of  it  constitute  sul 
infringement.  It  follows  that,  no  matter  how  slight  even^ 
abridgement  of  the  liberty  of  conscience,  speech  or  prelsTS 
self  an  unpardonable  tyranny  and  necessarily  implies  a  justifi- 
cation for  every  form  of  inquisition,  and  for  every  form  of  Sw- 
less  absolutism,  in  the  constituted  tyrannical  pSler 

vitv  o/a!rf  °'''  T^  '"'  •='^"^^^"'^--  «f  the  intellectual  acti- 

st  ad  of  It  r'  "^  ^'^°*'^  P''"^°"^  ^''  the  same.  In- 
stead of  leading  others  to  an  acceptance  of  their  conclusions 
by  encouraging  an  examination  of  all  possible  pertinent  eW- 

and  a  cultivation  of  associated  emotions  of  approval      Thus 
th^  instill  in  the  minds  of  the  weak  and  immature  a  forkful 
habit  of  unfairness,  of  imbecility,  and  of  mental  corrupt^ 
which  tinfits  all  affected  ones  for  honest  inquiry  or  the  love  of 
truth,  or  a  desire  to  weigh  opposing  evidence.     The  bigot 
always   attempts   to   frighten   others   from   honestly  or  thor^ 
oughly  investigating  his  convictions,  by  denouncing  disagree- 
ment as   dangerous,   wickedly  heretical,   and  therefore   "im- 
moral     By  such  superstitious,  ethical  sentimentalizing  the  be- 
nighted, in  the  name  of  the  social  good,  deny  others  ^k    right 
or  the  means  of  examining  their  boasted  "morality  " 

twel  indTff"  '"'"^''  r'P"'''  "'  '"^""S  the  distinction  be- 
fTrence  at  to  ".".  f '  T""  "'  °"^'^  °P'"'«"^  -"^  indif- 
tt       The  1  "i  """""'"^  °P'"'''"^  ^hall  prove  to  be 

o^erwL  hi      V      '  '"'*"''  °'  ''''  ^'^°t  and  persecutor, 
aid  the  !         ''        "f  ^"'*'^^  '^'  '■'"'t*ti°"  °f  discussion 
sents  1  r''''"T  f  '"''"•^^-     '^'  '^"er  proposition  pre- 
set 111  t^eTt  °.^*''^r"t■^ts,  who  therefore  desire  to  con- 
sider  all  the  material  evidence  adducible 

love^Jf  tn^th  °K  r*''°"''  r'"^  '"'''"''''  ^"  ^^''^^"<^«'  for  the 
before  it  ™f;-.  T""'  '°'"  '"^  '''''"''"'  ''^  ^"^^^^  truth 
accents    t,!   1^  demonstrated  to  be  true,  and  even  then,  he 

whTch  .1  ■.  '  '""^'^""'^  *'"*'''  ^'^  the  correction  of 

which  all  new  evidence  will  ever  be  welcomed. 

67 


PuHsts  of  literature  -found  the  attnbutes  of  ^^^^^^^ 
those  of  the  behavior  toward  ev.dence.    They^scnl^ 
beUef  the  praise  or  blame  -^-h  can  on^y  1^  due  to 
n.ode  of  dealing  with  evidence.    Thus  they  ^^^e  ^  J  ^„ 

unfairness,  by  forcibly  suppressmg  ^  P^"^'  °  J^^  ^„.,  L,- 

honest  ^^^^:^^XZ,J^^s.  or  reward 
lect  to  the  suicide  of  logic   oy  w  8 

into  others,  without  evidence    engenders  an 

of  evidence,  the  dogmatist  of  -^^^^^ /^f/jf;,  ^.^^^es 

can  be  guilty  of  intellectual  immorality  because  he 

the  essence  of  all  depravity.  j^^^^, 

..The  habit   of   ^--jf^^rrst— rhibitrofmind. 
"without  -v.dence,  IS  one  of  the  m  ^^^.^^^   ^^  ^  .^.j^. 

"As  our  opinions  are  the  fathers  «  indifferent 

"ferent  about  the  evidence  of  °"^  ^P^^'^^^J^^^,  .^^sequences 
"about  the  consequences  of  our  actions^  But  th^  co      q 

"of  our  actions  are  the  g-'i.-^  J'  .^^V  "The  habit  of 
"The  habit  of  neglect  of  evidence,  *ejefore,  .s 

"disregarding  the  good  ^l^^^J.:Z^^:ZTLr.^  cen- 

'^  ^Tert  re  being  wii.o:t  this  virtue,  it  must  be  a  rare 
sors  of  literature  Dem„  .  ,     j^^    and  in  long  per- 

accident  if,  from  a  more  enlightened  view, 
spective  they  be  not  judged  deep  m  vice 

T^  •    »u=  ,i;=rp<rard  for  and  misuse  of  eviaence  uy  "-^ 
It  is  the  disregard  lor  a  „rnicious  institutions,  and 

which  explains  the  existence  of  all  Pe™>"° 
the  mischievous  opinions  which  support  them  and 

hateful  durability.  .      „    ,    ,   ,,:„ip    it  must  consist 

Tf  .i,»r^   ran   be   any   intellectual   crime,   it   musi 
of  the  ;«    nVof  evidence  wUhin  -s^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
and  the  highest  degree  of  this  -— y  "^^^^^^^^^^^        ^.^Ht 
who  deliberately  suppress  this  evdence  wmc  .^ 

^  accessible  to  others  prep^     to  ma.e^  a  right^  ^^^^^^^^^ 
No  man  can  be  held  responsible,  no  understanding 

for  the  effect  which  may  be  produced  on  his  unde  g 

,,  the  partial  evidence  to     h.ch  -^  ^  ^  -t  be  cor- 

this  It  follows  that  errors  oi  ^^.-^      pines   and  im- 

.  A  u     o«   anneal  to  the  Understanding,      rines 
;;*l''i.rS<o- »<  svuor.™.  which  ™,  .uppr.. 
truth  but  can    never  elicit  it. 

68 


? 


I 


^        The  pubhc  interest  requires  that  every  difficult  question 

[even  questions  of  the  hygiene,  the  psychology  and  the  ethics 

of  sex]  should  be  patiently  and  deliberately  examined  on  all 

sides,  under  every  view  in  which  it  presents  itself ;  that  no 

'light  should  be  excluded,  but  evidence  and  argument  of  every 

^^'kind   should   have  their   full   hearing.     It   is   thus   that   the 

*^doubtful  truths  of  one  generation  become  the  axioms  of  the 

I'next ;  and  that  the  painful  results  of  laborious  investigation 

'*and  deep  thinking  gradually  descend  from  the  closet  of  the 

^''learned  and  pervade  the  mass  of  the  community,  for  the  com- 

'*mon  improvement  of  mankind." 

It   must  be   axiomatic   that   upon   every   question   of   im- 
portance to  any  human  being  it  is  the  right  of  each  individual 
to  have  the  most  intelligent  opinion  of  which  his  capacity  for 
understanding  will  permit.     That  being  true,  it  is  his  inalien- 
able right  to  have  access  to  all  the  arguments  and  evidences 
which  any  other  human  would  be  willing  to  supply,  if  permitted 
to  do  so.     The  denial  of  this  right,  through  the  moral  cen- 
sorship of  literature  for  sane  adults,  is  an  infamous  tyranny. 
"All  benefit  of  having  evidence  is  lost  if  it  comes  into  a 
^|mind  prepared  to  make  bad  use  of  it.    The  habit  of  attaching 
^^'one's  self  to  one  side  of  a  question  is  a  habit  of  confirmed 
^''selfishness,  of  low  order,  and  immoral.     By  the  habit  of  be- 
"iieving  whatever  a  man   [under  perverse  associations  of  his 
"emotions  of  approval]  wishes  to  believe,  he  becomes  in  pro- 
I'portion  to  the  strength  of  the  habit,  a  bad  neighbor,  a  bad 
''trustee,  a  bad  politician,  a  bad  judge,  a  shameless  advocate. 
''A  man  whose  intellect  is  always  at  the  command  of  his  sin- 
"ister  interests,  is  a  man  whose  conscience  is  always  at  the 
"command  of  it." 

It  irresistibly  follows  from  these  considerations  that  the 
only  intellectual  "immorality"  which  any  man  can  commit,  is 
that  committed  by  those  who  systematically  procure  the  sup- 
pression of  evidence,  and  in  this  regard,  no  exception  can 
be  made  because  the  subject  matter  of  the  suppression  is 
sexual.  I  therefore  charge  that  the  most  "immoral'^  persons 
on  earth  are  those  responsible  for  the  suppression  of  miscalled 
^'impure  literature."  If  error  and  knowledge  are  incompat- 
ible, then  error  and  ignorance  must  be  inseparable  and  the 
censors  of  literature  must  be  the  chief  perpetuators  of  mental 
and  moral  stagnation. 

"It  is  a  truth  that  men  ought  no  longer  to  be  led,  and  it 

69 


« 


"would  be  a  joyful  truth,  if  truth  it  were,  that  they  are  re- 
"solved  no  longer  to  be  led  blindfold  in  ignorance.  It  is  a 
"truth  that  the  principle  which  leads  men  to  judge  and  treat 
"each  other,  not  according  to  the  intrinsic  merit  of  their  action, 
"but  according  to  the  accidental  and  involuntary  coincidence 
"of  their  opinions,  is  a  vile  principle.  It  is  a  truth  that  man 
"should  not  render  account  to  man  for  his  beliefs,"— even  on 
the  subject  of  sex. 

All  those  who  love  liberty  more  than  power,  and  have  the 
intelligence  to  see  in  the  present  and  future,  the  development 
of  tyranny  by  our  rapid  growth  of  arbitrary  power  as  mani- 
fested in  our  growing  censorship  of  the  mails  and  press ;  the 
spread  and  development  of  "constructive  contempt"  of  court ; 
the  progress  of  executive  legislation  at  Washington ;  the  asser- 
tion through  government  by  injunction  that  the  justice  of  em- 
ployers, or  our  economic  system,  is  to  be  criticized  only  at  the 
times  and  places,  and  to  the  persons  who  have  the  court's  per- 
mission ;  the  laws  creating  a  censorship  over  the  opinions  of 
all  immigrants,  and  prohibiting  the- advocacy  within  some  of 
our  states,  of  violent  resistance  of  tyranny  abroad ;  the  pun- 
ishment of  a  Philippine  editor  for  publishing  our  Declaration 
of  Independence  as  conducing  to  insurrection ;  the  suppression 
of  an  American  paper  in  Porto  Rico  for  criticising  public  of- 
ficials and  denying   the    rightful    opportunity   to    prove    the 
truth  of  its  allegation;  the  official  destruction  by  the  New 
York  postal  officials  of  several  hundred  thousand  post-cards, 
which  reflected  on  a  candidate  for  public  office ;  the  demand  of 
the  beef  packers  that  magazines  criticising  their  business  be  de- 
nied the  use  of  the  mails ;  the  arrest  in  Idaho  of  an  editor  for 
publishing  questions  asking  a  petty  militia  despot  where  under 
the  Constitution  he  found  the  warrant  for  his  acts  during  a 
strike-disorder ;  all  these  developments  of  recent  years  show  in 
our  country  a  condition,  which,  with  many  other  circumstances, 
tends  to  the  downfall  of  our  liberties.    Unless  these  tendencies 
are  checked,  and  checked    effectively,    the    time    may    come 
when  the  descendants  of  those  who  now  will  not  defend  the 
liberties  of  others,  may  have  to  defend  their  own  under  the 
added  difficulty  of  multiple  precedents. 

The  best  way  to  prevent  this  is  to  re-establish,  as  the  foun- 
dation of  all  liberties,  all  that  freedom  of  speech  and  press. 


I 


which  is  now  in  various  ways  abridged  upon  a  half  dozen  sub- 
jects, and  soon  may  be  abridged  upon  still  other  subjects. 

It  is  hoped  that  all  lovers  of  liberty  will  therefore  unite  to 
the  end  that  an  uncensored  speech  and  press  may  be  re- 
established and  protected,  for  which  end  the  Free  Speech 
League  is  organized.  It  is  for  you  to  help  its  work  along, 
either  by  co-operation  with  it  or  working  independently  toward 
the  same  end. 


a 


ri 


TO 


PRACTICAL    SUGGESTIONS. 


If  you  have  read  this  argument  and  are  disposed  to  give 
practical  aid  to  the  enlargement  of  our  right  to  know  our  own 
organism,  we  suggest  that  you  follow  one  or  more  of  the 
following  methods. 

I.  If  you  belong  to  any  mothers  or  womans  club,  or  to  a 
religious,  reform,  civic,  fraternal,  scientific,  professional  or  other 
organization,  call  its  attention  to  this  discussion  and  urge  the 
adoption  of  appropriate  resolutions  expressive  of  its  views,  and 
forward  the  same  to  the  proper  legislative  body  and  a  copy 
thereof  to  the  Free  Speech  League.  Medical  Societies  should 
specially  interest  themselves. 

Such  a  resolution  should  favor  one  or  more  of  the  following 
propositions,  (a)  School  and  university  instruction  in  sexual 
physiology  and  hygiene,  (b)  After  pointing  out  the  evil  inher- 
ent in  existing  laws,  the  general  purpose  or  a  remedy  might  be 
stated,  as  it  was  done  in  the  resolutions  of  the  Nalional  Purity 
Federation,  published  near  the  beginning  of  this  pamphlet ;  or, 
(c)  a  more  definite  amendment  of  the  laws  might  be  suggested,' 
such  as  would  exempt  from  the  operation  of  present  statutes,  the 
circulation,  at  their  request,  among  adults,  of  any  serious  discus- 
sion of  sex  matters,  or  particular  classes  of  adults,  as  for  ex- 
ample all  lawyers,  teachers,  physicians,  clergymen,  public  offici- 
als and  perhaps  all  married  persons  ;  or  (d)  such  a  resolution 
might  simply  advocate  the  repeal  of  all  present  laws  upon  the 
subject. 

II.  Another  way  to  help  the  cause  of  liberty  and  enlighten- 
ment in  relation  to  these  matters  would  be  for  you  to  buy  a  sup- 
ply of  these  pamphlets  and  send  them  to  members  of  Congress 
and  state  legislators,  and  to  prominent  persons  in  a  situation  to 
influence  some  organization  to  endorse  our  aim. 

III.  If  you  are  a  literary  or  professional  person,  or  have  ever 
held  public  office  send  us,  with  permission  to  publish  it,  a  letter 
endorsing  our  aims  as  in  this  pamphlet  expressed. 

IV.  Make  a  contribution  of  money  to  help  us  in  the  work  of 
educating  the  public  on  the  desirability  and  meaning  of  intellec- 
tual liberty.      No  one  connected  with  this  organization  receives 
any  compensation  for  work  done  in  its  behalf. 
Ever  yours  for  Truth,  Justice  and  Liberty, 

THE    FREE   SPEECH    LEAGUE, 

E.  W.  Chamberlain,  Pres.     * 
Dr.  E.  B.  Foote.  (Treas.), 
1 20  Lexington  Ave., 
New  York  City. 


^ 


i'o 


THE     FREE     SPEECH     LEAGUE, 

120   Lexington    Avenue,  New  York. 

Offers  the  Following  List  of  Publications   some  of  which  can 
be  had  in  large  lots  at  reduced  rates  for  free  distribution. 

The  Declaration  of  the  Free  Speech  League.  .  .  free 
Constructive  Obscenity,  etc.,  re  Harmon  case  of  1905,  free 
Liberty  in  Literature,  by  R.  G.  Ingersoll,  .         $0.25 

Do  Vou  Want  Free  Speech  ?  by  James  F.  Morton,  Jr.  .10 
Liberty  versus  Assassination,  by  E.  C.  Walker,    .  .         .05 

Who    is   the   Enemy,  Comstock   or  You  !   by   E.   C. 

Walker 20 

Administrative   Process  of  the  Postal  Department,  by 

Prof.  T.  B.  Wakeman,  05 

Our  Advancing  Censorship,  by  Louis  F.  Post,  .  .05 

Our  Despotic  Censorship,  by  Louis  F.  Post,  4  .  .  .05 
An  Essay  on  Liberty,  by  John  Stuart  Mill  (cloth),     .  .50 

Martyrdoms   of   Literature,  by  R.  H.  Vickers,  (24  and 

451  pages) 2.00 

John  Turner  Case  before  Supreme  Court,  argument  by 

his    attorney,    Clarence   S.    Darrow    (concerning 

deportation  of  anarchists) 50 

Why  Heywood  Should  be  Released,  by  E.  W,  Cham-   '. 

berlain,  ...  ....         .05 

A   Good    Man  Sent   to   Prison   (Harman),  by   H.    O. 

Pentecost,  ....••••  -^5 
In  Behalf  of  Personal  Liberty,  by  Julian  Hawthorne,  .05 
An  Appeal  for^  Liberty  and  Justice  (to  women)  by  C. 

L.  James, ^5 

Primary  Causes  of  Disease,  Insanity  and  Death,  by  E. 

B.  Foote,  Sn,  M.  D o5 

Pamphlets  or  Books  Written  or  Compiled 
by  Theodore  Schroeder. 

Our  Vanishing  Liberty  of  the  Press,  from  the  Arena,  .05 

Culture  and  Culturine, •  05 

Paternal  Legislation,  a  study  of  liberty,     .         .         .  05 
Freedom  of  the  Press  and  Obscene  Literature,  a  col- 
lection of  three  essays,  including  ''What  is  Crimi- 
nally Obscene  ?'*  etc ^   -25 

Free  Press  Anthology  of  classical  arguments  and  ex- 
tracts culled  and  compiled  from  wise  men  ol 
all  ages,-       ....  ...        i.oo 


